IMST vs. IWMI
IMST (Bitwise Funds Trust) and IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, IMST returned -66.17% vs 35.89% for IWMI. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IMST charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for IWMI.
Performance
IMST vs. IWMI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IMST achieves a -25.05% return, which is significantly lower than IWMI's 16.33% return.
IMST
- 1D
- -1.74%
- 1M
- -26.67%
- YTD
- -25.05%
- 6M
- -27.13%
- 1Y
- -66.17%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWMI
- 1D
- -0.73%
- 1M
- 3.68%
- YTD
- 16.33%
- 6M
- 14.17%
- 1Y
- 35.89%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IMST vs. IWMI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IMST Bitwise Funds Trust | -25.05% | -46.36% |
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF | 16.33% | 22.70% |
Correlation
The correlation between IMST and IWMI is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.49 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 3, 2025 | 0.49 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
IMST vs. IWMI — Risk / Return Rank
IMST
IWMI
IMST vs. IWMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bitwise Funds Trust (IMST) and NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI). 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.
| IMST | IWMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -3.49 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -5.34 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.77 | 1.40 | -0.64 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.94 | 4.29 | -5.23 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.36 | 17.68 | -19.04 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IMST vs. IWMI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IMST drawdown since its inception was -70.68%, which is greater than IWMI's maximum drawdown of -23.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMST and IWMI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IMST | IWMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -70.68% | -23.88% | -46.80% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -70.68% | -8.40% | -62.28% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -70.68% | -0.73% | -69.95% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -36.57% | -4.03% | -32.54% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 48.73% | 2.04% | +46.69% |
Volatility
IMST vs. IWMI - Volatility Comparison
Bitwise Funds Trust (IMST) has a higher volatility of 17.47% compared to NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI) at 5.22%. This indicates that IMST's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IMST | IWMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 17.47% | 5.22% | +12.25% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 44.16% | 11.45% | +32.71% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 58.04% | 15.41% | +42.63% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 59.62% | 17.95% | +41.67% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 59.62% | 17.95% | +41.67% |
IMST vs. IWMI - Expense Ratio Comparison
IMST has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than IWMI's 0.68% expense ratio.
Dividends
IMST vs. IWMI - Dividend Comparison
IMST's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 251.60%, more than IWMI's 14.53% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
IMST Bitwise Funds Trust | 251.60% | 195.93% | 0.00% |
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF | 14.53% | 14.05% | 8.78% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IMST and IWMI have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IMST has higher volatility (17.47%) compared to IWMI (5.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMST dropped -70.68% vs IWMI's -23.88%.
On 1-year performance, IWMI leads with 35.89% vs -66.17% for IMST. On fees, IWMI is cheaper at 0.68% per year. On volatility, IWMI has been the lower-risk option at 5.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, IWMI has performed better with a 35.89% return vs -66.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWMI is cheaper with a 0.68% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for IMST.
IMST has the higher dividend yield at 251.60%, compared with 14.53% for IWMI.
They also come from different issuers: Bitwise and Neos. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for IMST and 0.68% for IWMI.
IWMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.34 vs -1.14), 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.
Find the right allocation for IMST and IWMI
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer