IWMI vs. RYLD

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF) and RYLD (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. IWMI is actively managed, while RYLD is passively managed. Over the past year, IWMI returned 33.64% vs 24.71% for RYLD. Their correlation of 0.89 means they have usually moved in the same direction. IWMI charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for RYLD.

Performance

IWMI vs. RYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI) 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, IWMI achieves a 18.49% return, which is significantly higher than RYLD's 14.18% return.

IWMI

• 1D: 1.20%
• 1M: 0.94%
• 6M: 12.72%
• YTD: 18.49%
• 1Y: 33.64%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.35%

RYLD

• 1D: 0.62%
• 1M: 2.90%
• 6M: 11.01%
• YTD: 14.18%
• 1Y: 24.71%
• 3Y*: 8.92%
• 5Y*: 3.40%
• 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)
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	$18.07M	$19.78M	$18.17M
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	$10.56M	$9.60M	$9.13M

IWMI vs. RYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	18.49%	14.97%	6.58%
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	14.18%	5.65%	8.88%

Correlation

The correlation between IWMI and RYLD is 0.90, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2024	0.89

The correlation between IWMI and RYLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWMI vs. RYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWMI	RYLD
Technology	19.1%	14.5%
Industrials	18.0%	14.1%
Healthcare	16.3%	20.3%
Financial Services	15.5%	17.8%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	9.2%
Real Estate	5.9%	6.8%
Energy	5.3%	5.5%
Basic Materials	4.7%	4.4%
Utilities	2.8%	2.8%
Communication Services	2.5%	2.2%
Consumer Defensive	2.1%	2.6%

Return for Risk

IWMI vs. RYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWMI

IWMI Risk / Return Rank: 87
IWMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
IWMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
IWMI Omega Ratio Rank: 83
IWMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
IWMI Martin Ratio Rank: 91

RYLD

RYLD Risk / Return Rank: 90
RYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
RYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
RYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 93
RYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
RYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

IWMI vs. RYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI) 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.

	IWMI	RYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.22	2.38	-0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.10	3.34	-0.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.50	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.02	3.94	+0.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.56	16.16	+0.40

IWMI vs. RYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWMI Sharpe Ratio is 2.22, which is comparable to the RYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWMI 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

IWMI vs. RYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWMI drawdown since its inception was -23.88%, smaller than the maximum RYLD drawdown of -41.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWMI and RYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWMI	RYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.88%	-41.53%	+17.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.40%	-6.29%	-2.11%
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	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.86%	-8.64%	+4.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.04%	1.53%	+0.51%

Volatility

IWMI vs. RYLD - Volatility Comparison

NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI) has a higher volatility of 3.93% compared to Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) at 2.34%. This indicates that IWMI'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

	IWMI	RYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.93%	2.34%	+1.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.73%	7.72%	+4.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.34%	10.57%	+4.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.67%	13.98%	+3.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.67%	17.04%	+0.63%

IWMI vs. RYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWMI has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than RYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWMI vs. RYLD - Dividend Comparison

IWMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.50%, more than RYLD's 11.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	13.50%	14.05%	8.78%	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 IWMI and RYLD in my portfolio?

IWMI and RYLD have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWMI or RYLD?

IWMI has higher volatility (3.93%) compared to RYLD (2.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWMI dropped -23.88% vs RYLD's -41.53%.

Which ETF is better, IWMI or RYLD?

On 1-year performance, IWMI leads with 33.64% vs 24.71% for RYLD. On fees, RYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, RYLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWMI or RYLD?

Over the 1-year period, IWMI has performed better with a 33.64% return vs 24.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWMI or RYLD?

RYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for IWMI.

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

IWMI has the higher dividend yield at 13.50%, compared with 11.43% for RYLD.

What is the main difference between IWMI and RYLD?

They also come from different issuers: Neos and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for IWMI and 0.60% for RYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.38 vs 2.22), 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.