IWMI vs. RYLG

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF) and RYLG (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. IWMI is actively managed, while RYLG is passively managed. Over the past year, IWMI returned 33.64% vs 31.36% for RYLG. Their 0.96 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. IWMI charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RYLG.

Performance

IWMI vs. RYLG - 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 & Growth ETF (RYLG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with IWMI having a 18.49% return and RYLG slightly lower at 18.29%.

IWMI

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

RYLG

• 1D: 1.28%
• 1M: 2.28%
• 6M: 12.91%
• YTD: 18.29%
• 1Y: 31.36%
• 3Y*: 13.00%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.43%

*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
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	$61.50K	$41.96K	$48.55K

IWMI vs. RYLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	18.49%	14.97%	6.58%
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	18.29%	9.39%	9.48%

Correlation

The correlation between IWMI and RYLG is 0.98 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2024	0.96

The correlation between IWMI and RYLG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWMI vs. RYLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWMI	RYLG
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. RYLG — 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

RYLG

RYLG Risk / Return Rank: 84
RYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
RYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
RYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 81
RYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
RYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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. RYLG - 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 & Growth ETF (RYLG). 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	RYLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.22	2.13	+0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.10	2.98	+0.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.38	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.02	3.85	+0.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.56	15.00	+1.56

IWMI vs. RYLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWMI Sharpe Ratio is 2.22, which is comparable to the RYLG Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWMI and RYLG, 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. RYLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWMI drawdown since its inception was -23.88%, which is greater than RYLG's maximum drawdown of -22.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWMI and RYLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWMI	RYLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.88%	-22.37%	-1.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.40%	-8.18%	-0.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-22.37%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.86%	-3.99%	+0.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.04%	2.10%	-0.06%

Volatility

IWMI vs. RYLG - Volatility Comparison

NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI) has a higher volatility of 3.93% compared to Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) at 3.45%. This indicates that IWMI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RYLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWMI	RYLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.93%	3.45%	+0.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.73%	10.98%	+0.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.34%	14.91%	+0.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.67%	16.98%	+0.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.67%	16.98%	+0.69%

IWMI vs. RYLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWMI has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than RYLG's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWMI vs. RYLG - Dividend Comparison

IWMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.50%, more than RYLG's 10.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	13.50%	14.05%	8.78%	0.00%	0.00%
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	10.08%	10.82%	23.73%	5.78%	4.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWMI and RYLG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, IWMI and RYLG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, IWMI or RYLG?

IWMI has higher volatility (3.93%) compared to RYLG (3.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWMI dropped -23.88% vs RYLG's -22.37%.

Which ETF is better, IWMI or RYLG?

On 1-year performance, IWMI leads with 33.64% vs 31.36% for RYLG. On fees, RYLG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RYLG has been the lower-risk option at 3.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWMI or RYLG?

Over the 1-year period, IWMI has performed better with a 33.64% return vs 31.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWMI or RYLG?

RYLG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for IWMI.

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

IWMI has the higher dividend yield at 13.50%, compared with 10.08% for RYLG.

What is the main difference between IWMI and RYLG?

They also come from different issuers: Neos and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for IWMI and 0.35% for RYLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 2.13), 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.