AAPW vs. RYLD

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

AAPW (AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF) and RYLD (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. AAPW is actively managed, while RYLD is passively managed. Over the past year, AAPW returned 54.84% vs 26.26% for RYLD. Their 0.39 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. AAPW charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for RYLD.

Performance

AAPW vs. RYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF (AAPW) and Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AAPW achieves a 11.02% return, which is significantly lower than RYLD's 13.48% return.

AAPW

• 1D: -2.28%
• 1M: -2.47%
• 6M: 12.40%
• YTD: 11.02%
• 1Y: 54.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.83%

RYLD

• 1D: 1.06%
• 1M: 2.27%
• 6M: 10.40%
• YTD: 13.48%
• 1Y: 26.26%
• 3Y*: 8.70%
• 5Y*: 3.43%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.95%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
AAPW AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF	$952.50K	$777.94K	$708.97K
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	$9.87M	$9.43M	$9.08M

AAPW vs. RYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AAPW AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF	11.02%	8.71%
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	13.48%	1.42%

Correlation

The correlation between AAPW and RYLD is 0.30, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2025	0.39

AAPW vs. RYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AAPW	RYLD
Technology	12.5%	14.5%
Basic Materials	-	4.4%
Communication Services	-	2.2%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.6%
Energy	-	5.5%
Financial Services	-	17.8%
Healthcare	-	20.3%
Industrials	-	14.1%
Real Estate	-	6.8%
Utilities	-	2.8%

Return for Risk

AAPW vs. RYLD — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

AAPW

AAPW Risk / Return Rank: 72
AAPW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
AAPW Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
AAPW Omega Ratio Rank: 74
AAPW Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
AAPW Martin Ratio Rank: 60

RYLD

RYLD Risk / Return Rank: 93
RYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
RYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
RYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 94
RYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
RYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 93

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

AAPW vs. RYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF (AAPW) and Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AAPW	RYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.75	2.50	-0.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.35	3.52	-1.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.52	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.17	4.19	-1.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.52	17.17	-9.66

AAPW vs. RYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AAPW Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is comparable to the RYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AAPW and RYLD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

AAPW vs. RYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AAPW drawdown since its inception was -36.28%, smaller than the maximum RYLD drawdown of -41.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AAPW and RYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	AAPW	RYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.28%	-41.53%	+5.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.36%	-6.29%	-11.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.05%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-21.33%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.04%	0.00%	-13.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.45%	-8.65%	-1.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.32%	1.53%	+5.79%

Volatility

AAPW vs. RYLD - Volatility Comparison

AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF (AAPW) has a higher volatility of 13.12% compared to Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) at 2.30%. This indicates that AAPW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RYLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AAPW	RYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.12%	2.30%	+10.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.92%	7.74%	+17.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.52%	10.58%	+20.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	35.69%	13.98%	+21.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.69%	17.04%	+18.65%

AAPW vs. RYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

AAPW has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than RYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

AAPW vs. RYLD - Dividend Comparison

AAPW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 31.96%, more than RYLD's 11.50% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
AAPW AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF	31.96%	28.83%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	11.50%	12.00%	12.03%	12.64%	13.49%	12.35%	10.76%	6.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AAPW and RYLD in my portfolio?

AAPW and RYLD have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AAPW or RYLD?

AAPW has higher volatility (13.12%) compared to RYLD (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AAPW dropped -36.28% vs RYLD's -41.53%.

Which ETF is better, AAPW or RYLD?

On 1-year performance, AAPW leads with 54.84% vs 26.26% for RYLD. On fees, RYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, RYLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AAPW or RYLD?

Over the 1-year period, AAPW has performed better with a 54.84% return vs 26.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AAPW or RYLD?

RYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for AAPW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AAPW or RYLD?

AAPW has the higher dividend yield at 31.96%, compared with 11.50% for RYLD.

What is the main difference between AAPW and RYLD?

They also come from different issuers: Roundhill and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for AAPW and 0.60% for RYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.50 vs 1.75), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.