AMZW vs. RYLD

Last updated Aug 6, 2026

AMZW (Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF) and RYLD (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. AMZW is actively managed, while RYLD is passively managed. Over the past year, AMZW returned 27.02% vs 24.20% for RYLD. Their 0.36 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. AMZW charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for RYLD.

Performance

AMZW vs. RYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF (AMZW) 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, AMZW achieves a 18.32% return, which is significantly higher than RYLD's 14.18% return.

AMZW

• 1D: -1.74%
• 1M: 13.55%
• 6M: 17.47%
• YTD: 18.32%
• 1Y: 27.02%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 23.54%

RYLD

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 2.51%
• 6M: 11.58%
• YTD: 14.18%
• 1Y: 24.20%
• 3Y*: 8.92%
• 5Y*: 3.32%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.04%

*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)
AMZW Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF	$934.74K	$647.40K	$754.53K
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	$10.88M	$9.80M	$9.16M

AMZW vs. RYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AMZW Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF	18.32%	7.33%
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	14.18%	11.22%

Correlation

The correlation between AMZW and RYLD is 0.40, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 18, 2025	0.36

AMZW vs. RYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AMZW	RYLD
Consumer Cyclical	20.0%	9.2%
Basic Materials	-	4.4%
Communication Services	-	2.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.6%
Energy	-	5.5%
Financial Services	-	17.8%
Healthcare	-	20.3%
Industrials	-	14.1%
Real Estate	-	6.8%
Technology	-	14.5%
Utilities	-	2.8%

Return for Risk

AMZW vs. RYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

AMZW

AMZW Risk / Return Rank: 27
AMZW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
AMZW Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
AMZW Omega Ratio Rank: 28
AMZW Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
AMZW Martin Ratio Rank: 25

RYLD

RYLD Risk / Return Rank: 89
RYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
RYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
RYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 92
RYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
RYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

AMZW vs. RYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF (AMZW) 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.

	AMZW	RYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.65	2.33	-1.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.29	3.28	-1.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.49	-0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.01	3.86	-2.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.12	15.83	-13.71

AMZW vs. RYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMZW Sharpe Ratio is 0.65, which is lower than the RYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMZW 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

AMZW vs. RYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMZW drawdown since its inception was -26.79%, smaller than the maximum RYLD drawdown of -41.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMZW and RYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMZW	RYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.79%	-41.53%	+14.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.79%	-6.29%	-20.50%
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	-4.54%	0.00%	-4.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.66%	-8.64%	-1.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.78%	1.53%	+11.25%

Volatility

AMZW vs. RYLD - Volatility Comparison

Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF (AMZW) has a higher volatility of 20.55% compared to Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) at 2.31%. This indicates that AMZW'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

	AMZW	RYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	20.55%	2.31%	+18.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.23%	7.72%	+24.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	41.80%	10.42%	+31.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	41.16%	13.98%	+27.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	41.16%	17.03%	+24.13%

AMZW vs. RYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

AMZW vs. RYLD - Dividend Comparison

AMZW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 40.03%, more than RYLD's 11.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
AMZW Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF	40.03%	25.29%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	11.43%	12.00%	12.03%	12.64%	13.49%	12.35%	10.76%	6.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AMZW and RYLD in my portfolio?

AMZW and RYLD have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AMZW or RYLD?

AMZW has higher volatility (20.55%) compared to RYLD (2.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMZW dropped -26.79% vs RYLD's -41.53%.

Which ETF is better, AMZW or RYLD?

On 1-year performance, AMZW leads with 27.02% vs 24.20% for RYLD. On fees, RYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, RYLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AMZW or RYLD?

Over the 1-year period, AMZW has performed better with a 27.02% return vs 24.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMZW or RYLD?

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

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

AMZW has the higher dividend yield at 40.03%, compared with 11.43% for RYLD.

What is the main difference between AMZW and RYLD?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs 0.65), 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.