Russell 2000 vs S&P 500 vs Nasdaq — Valuation Decides the Winner
Russell 2000 vs S&P 500 vs Nasdaq — Valuation Decides the Winner
The same two indexes, opposite winners
The clearest thing that came out of the backtest I ran myself is this: whether the Russell 2000 or the S&P 500 wins is decided not by the index itself, but by when — at what valuation — you started.
Imagine steadily putting $100 a month into three things: the Russell 2000 (an index of about 2,000 smaller companies), the S&P 500 (the 500 largest by market cap), and QQQ (the Nasdaq, heavy on tech). Run it across different stretches of history and one pattern jumps out that changes everything.
Option A: when the S&P 500 wins
The S&P dominates when you start cheap.
Look at March 2009, the very bottom of the financial crisis, when large stocks were dirt cheap and hated. Dollar cost averaging from that cheap starting point to today handed you 14.79% a year on the S&P. Buying once and just holding gave 16.86%. The Nasdaq was even better: 20.25% averaging in, 22.28% as a lump sum.
Over the same window, the Russell 2000 did 11.32% averaging in and 14.75% as a lump sum. Excellent — but it trailed the large caps, because in 2009 the large caps were overwhelmingly cheap.
Option B: when the Russell 2000 wins
The Russell leads in the opposite case: when you start expensive.
Start at the peak of the dot-com bubble in 2000 — a moment, a lot like today, when the market was wildly overvalued. Averaging in from 2000 to 2012, the S&P earned under 5% a year while the Russell 2000 did about 7%. The smaller companies won because they were a lot cheaper.
You might shrug at "2%," but compounded over 12 years that's nearly a 30% difference. That's not small.
The gap for buy-and-hold is even more dramatic. Over that window the Russell 2000 returned 5.58% a year, the S&P 1.67%, and the Nasdaq -2.55%. The Nasdaq fell 80% and the S&P fell 50-something percent, but the Russell just kept holding up.
What about the Nasdaq — returns aren't everything
A fair question: "The Nasdaq beat both in each window, so why not just buy the Nasdaq?" Our team asked exactly that. The answer is volatility.
The Nasdaq saw an 80% drawdown in the dot-com crash. Over the same stretch the Russell fell less than 20%. The return numbers make the Nasdaq attractive, but whether you have the stomach to keep hitting the buy button at the bottom of an 80% drop is a completely different question. Most investors break right there.
To be clear, I'm not against the Nasdaq. Once QQQ falls hard and becomes reasonably priced, I'll add it to my low-cost averaging without hesitation. Pay reasonable prices, and tech will lead the market's gains in the future.
The three indexes at a glance
| Starting point / method | Russell 2000 | S&P 500 | Nasdaq (QQQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 peak, averaging in | ~7% | <5% | highest |
| 2000 peak, lump sum | +5.58% | +1.67% | -2.55% |
| 2009 bottom, averaging in | 11.32% | 14.79% | 20.25% |
| 2009 bottom, lump sum | 14.75% | 16.86% | 22.28% |
Same two assets, and only the start date changed — yet the winner flips entirely. Starting valuation decides almost everything.
The rotation may already be starting
What's exciting is that this rotation may already be underway this year.
Cheaper, steadier value stocks are crushing the expensive, fast-growing ones. Value is up about 15% this year while growth is up only about 2.5% — the widest gap since 2022. Small caps have been hitting fresh record highs, and on one recent day you could watch the money move in real time: boring financial stocks jumped about 1.5% while hot tech stocks fell more than 2%.
While the equal-weight S&P (every company counts the same) and the Russell 2000 both hit all-time highs, giants like Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon actually lagged by a wide margin. Value stocks trade around 14 times earnings; growth trades near double that, close to 30.
For the record, value investors like me don't split companies into "value" and "growth" — they're two sides of the same coin. What matters here is that the S&P and Nasdaq are far more overvalued today than the Russell 2000.
The bottom line: expensive or cheap right now?
So the real question isn't Russell or S&P. It's much simpler: are we starting expensive or cheap?
By the Buffett Indicator, we're among the most expensive levels in history — higher than at the dot-com crash. Today looks far more like 2000 than 2009. And if history rhymes even a little, that points toward the Russell 2000, not the S&P, for the next decade.
Related: The S&P 500 Is More Expensive Than Before the Dot-Com Crash
More in this Category
Getting Paid to Hold Nvidia: Understanding the Covered Call
Getting Paid to Hold Nvidia: Understanding the Covered Call
If you're torn between selling Nvidia and holding it, a covered call can be the answer. Selling a Sept 18 $250 call pays about $3.37 per share (roughly 8.8% annualized); a $220 call pays $10.39 (about 27%). Here's how it works and where it bites.
The Great 2026 Market Split: Memory Chips Went Parabolic While Tech Quietly Fell Into a Bear Market
The Great 2026 Market Split: Memory Chips Went Parabolic While Tech Quietly Fell Into a Bear Market
In Q2 2026 the S&P 500 jumped ~15% and the Nasdaq ~21%, yet nearly 60% of tech stocks were in a bear market and the semiconductor index rose 82% in 100 trading days. Here's why the market split — and what it reveals about how narratives follow prices.
Smart Money vs Wall Street: Burry, Buffett and Grantham Are Cautious While Goldman Targets S&P 8,000
Smart Money vs Wall Street: Burry, Buffett and Grantham Are Cautious While Goldman Targets S&P 8,000
Michael Burry is shorting Nvidia and Micron while buying hated value names; Buffett is sitting on nearly $400 billion in cash. Meanwhile Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley both target S&P 8,000 by year-end. Here's both cases at full strength — and the 1999 quotes that should give bulls pause.
Next Posts
Micron's $41.5B Blowout: Revenue Up 346% and What Comes Next
Micron's $41.5B Blowout: Revenue Up 346% and What Comes Next
Micron just posted $41.5B in quarterly revenue, up 346% year over year — the best quarter in its 47-year history. Gross margin jumped from 39% to 85%, the market cap cleared $1.3 trillion, and roughly $100B in long-term contracts is now locked in.
Micron Bulls vs Bears: Is the Memory Boom-Bust Cycle Really Over?
Micron Bulls vs Bears: Is the Memory Boom-Bust Cycle Really Over?
I pit three bull cases against three bear cases on Micron — AI memory demand and $100B in signed contracts versus the industry's recurring glut cycle and the risk that AI won't need premium HBM forever.
What Is Micron Actually Worth? I Ran the Bull and Bear Numbers
What Is Micron Actually Worth? I Ran the Bull and Bear Numbers
I calculated Micron's fair value under two 10-year scenarios — a bull midpoint near $3,900 and a bear midpoint near $670. When the gap is that wide, here's why even Warren Buffett would pass.
Previous Posts
Is Microsoft a Dying Business? The Real Reason It's Down 20% This Year
Is Microsoft a Dying Business? The Real Reason It's Down 20% This Year
Microsoft is down more than 20% this year while the market rose 10-13%, spooked by $190B in AI spending and fears that AI agents will eat the software business. But cloud revenue is still growing 30%. Here's what the numbers actually say.
Cash-Secured Puts: How to Get Paid to Wait for the Price You Want
Cash-Secured Puts: How to Get Paid to Wait for the Price You Want
I sell cash-secured puts on stocks I want to own until they reach my target price, earning 12-16% a year on the cash while I wait. Using live Microsoft ($350) and Meta ($535) examples, here's the structure — and the trap.
Amazon's Free Cash Flow Is Negative — Here's Why I Don't See That as a Red Flag
Amazon's Free Cash Flow Is Negative — Here's Why I Don't See That as a Red Flag
Amazon earned over $90B in net income last year yet posted -$2.5B in free cash flow. That gap is entirely capex, which has soared to $150B. Here's how I read Amazon by ignoring the checklist most investors rely on.