Beware of impersonation and scams. Verify official domains before acting.
Matched ETFs
2
AEOAE RESEARCH
Russell 2000 ETF Comparison
Russell 2000 comparison currently matches 2 ETFs in the published snapshot. 0 are bullish or improving, 0 are neutral, and 2 are bearish or weakening.
Page Focus
This page compares ETFs linked to Russell 2000 using the current aeoae data fields. It is intentionally neutral: the goal is to show structure differences, not to declare a permanent winner.
The comparison is organized by trend label, boundary accuracy, sample history and structure score. When several ETFs track similar exposure, small differences in fees, liquidity, tracking method and trading usage may matter more than a one-day signal.
The boundary framework is closed after the session and reviewed the next day only. That keeps the comparison free of hindsight edits and lets the nearest boundary hits serve as practical stage targets instead of moving goalposts.
Read the table as a research checklist. A stronger structure today can fade, while a weaker structure may repair later; the page updates with the published dataset.
Current Snapshot
Bullish
0
Neutral
0
Bearish
2
Research Lens
Exposure match
Russell 2000
Start by confirming that products really track the intended exposure.
Structure spread
0.20
A wider spread means same-theme products are behaving less alike.
Research order
Accuracy -> structure -> costs
Signal quality comes before a cosmetic one-day ranking.
Structure Details
Average boundary accuracy is 70.4%. The table is sorted by accuracy first, then structure score, because a clean boundary history matters when comparing similar exposures.
This page does not choose a winner. It narrows the research field and sends users to single-ETF pages for boundary prices, replay context and risk notes.
Reading Guide
Compare structure together with fees, liquidity, holdings and tax context; a short-term signal is only one research layer.
Diagnostic Table
| Trend bucket | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| strong bullish zone | 0 | 0.0% |
| bullish-leaning zone | 0 | 0.0% |
| neutral zone | 0 | 0.0% |
| bearish-leaning zone | 1 | 50.0% |
| strong bearish zone | 1 | 50.0% |
Sample Layers
| History bucket | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| short-history evaluation | 1 | 50.0% |
| standard evaluation | 1 | 50.0% |
Representative ETFs
| Ticker | Name | Trend | Accuracy | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IWMI | IWMI | bearish-leaning zone | 70.8% | short-history evaluation |
| IWM | IWM | strong bearish zone | 70.1% | standard evaluation |
Breadth Within The Benchmark
Comparison Logic
Tracking one benchmark does not make every ETF identical once liquidity, fee drag and boundary quality diverge.
A wider structure spread tells users the group is not moving as one block, even before checking a single day move.
Use the comparison page to narrow candidates, then confirm official holdings, fees, liquidity and detail-page replay context.
12-Factor Reading Frame
Position layer
Avg vs L3 -1.5%
Separates names just above the midpoint from names already stretched away from it.
Replay layer
Upper 20d 0.0% / Lower 20d 0.0%
Upper confirmation and lower support quality can diverge even inside one peer set.
Sample layer
Average history 0 days
Sample depth changes how much weight a comparison deserves.
12-Factor Peer Comparison
| Ticker | Name | Trend | Lines | Zone | Structure fit | Replay fit | vs L3 | vs L1 | L4 state | Samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IWMI | IWMI | bearish-leaning zone | 1 | --1 | 70.8% | 70.8% | -1.3% | 0.0% | below trigger | -- |
| IWM | IWM | strong bearish zone | 0 | --0 | 70.1% | 70.1% | -1.7% | -0.1% | below trigger | -- |
Stage Replay Frame
Active phases
0/2
Shows how many ETFs currently have an open stage target from the detail-page replay logic.
Stage replay
75.0%
Average historical hit rate of completed phase samples, useful for judging evidence depth.
Boundary review
L4 60d 75.0% / Edge60 32.7
Combines target-zone replay with boundary-review quality instead of using price movement alone.
Detail-Page Stage Replay Comparison
| Ticker | Name | Current phase | Target | Gap | Days | Replay samples | Hit rate | Avg days | L4 15d | L4 30d | L4 60d | Stability | Edge 20 | Edge 60 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IWMI | IWMI | -- | 54.479 | 3.6% | -- | 4 | 75.0% | 39.0 | 0.0% | 25.0% | 75.0% | moderate 38.9% | 32.3 | 27.4 |
| IWM | IWM | Tracking | 306.354 | 4.8% | 6 | 4 | 75.0% | 22.3 | 25.0% | 50.0% | 75.0% | moderate 37.1% | 49.1 | 38.1 |
Research Use Cases
Whether the current structure is broad, narrow, improving or defensive.
It does not decide suitability, future return, tax treatment or position size.
Open representative ETF detail pages and verify holdings, costs and liquidity.