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 -72.39% vs 31.12% for IWMI. At a 0.47 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 -31.57% return, which is significantly lower than IWMI's 16.26% return.
IMST
- 1D
- -1.79%
- 1M
- -18.69%
- 6M
- -35.66%
- YTD
- -31.57%
- 1Y
- -72.39%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWMI
- 1D
- -0.79%
- 1M
- 1.00%
- 6M
- 11.54%
- YTD
- 16.26%
- 1Y
- 31.12%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IMST vs. IWMI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IMST Bitwise Funds Trust | -31.57% | -46.36% |
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF | 16.26% | 22.70% |
Correlation
The correlation between IMST and IWMI is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 3, 2025 | 0.47 |
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 | -3.24 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -5.32 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.74 | 1.35 | -0.62 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.96 | 3.72 | -4.68 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.41 | 15.30 | -16.71 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IMST vs. IWMI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IMST drawdown since its inception was -75.63%, 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 | -75.63% | -23.88% | -51.75% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -75.63% | -8.40% | -67.23% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -73.23% | -1.59% | -71.64% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -38.06% | -3.94% | -34.12% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 51.48% | 2.04% | +49.44% |
Volatility
IMST vs. IWMI - Volatility Comparison
Bitwise Funds Trust (IMST) has a higher volatility of 21.80% compared to NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI) at 4.03%. 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 | 21.80% | 4.03% | +17.77% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 47.22% | 11.43% | +35.79% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 60.28% | 15.38% | +44.90% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 60.84% | 17.79% | +43.05% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 60.84% | 17.79% | +43.05% |
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 253.23%, more than IWMI's 13.48% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
IMST Bitwise Funds Trust | 253.23% | 195.93% | 0.00% |
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF | 13.48% | 14.05% | 8.78% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IMST and IWMI have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IMST has higher volatility (21.80%) compared to IWMI (4.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMST dropped -75.63% vs IWMI's -23.88%.
On 1-year performance, IWMI leads with 31.12% vs -72.39% for IMST. On fees, IWMI is cheaper at 0.68% per year. On volatility, IWMI has been the lower-risk option at 4.03%. 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 31.12% return vs -72.39%. 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 253.23%, compared with 13.48% 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 (2.04 vs -1.21), 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