IWMI vs. SMIG

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF) and SMIG (Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWMI is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Neos, while SMIG is a Small Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Bahl & Gaynor. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, IWMI returned 33.64% vs 16.78% for SMIG. Their 0.77 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. IWMI charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for SMIG.

Performance

IWMI vs. SMIG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI) and Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF (SMIG). 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 SMIG slightly lower at 17.85%.

IWMI

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

SMIG

• 1D: 0.90%
• 1M: 2.01%
• 6M: 12.17%
• YTD: 17.85%
• 1Y: 16.78%
• 3Y*: 13.57%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 8.15%

*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
SMIG Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF	$8.28M	$7.77M	$8.36M

IWMI vs. SMIG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	18.49%	14.97%	6.58%
SMIG Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF	17.85%	0.78%	10.42%

Correlation

The correlation between IWMI and SMIG is 0.69, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2024	0.77

The correlation between IWMI and SMIG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWMI vs. SMIG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWMI	SMIG
Technology	19.1%	10.8%
Industrials	18.0%	19.1%
Healthcare	16.3%	2.7%
Financial Services	15.5%	19.7%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	14.2%
Real Estate	5.9%	9.7%
Energy	5.3%	10.4%
Basic Materials	4.7%	2.0%
Utilities	2.8%	9.3%
Communication Services	2.5%	2.2%
Consumer Defensive	2.1%	2.2%

Return for Risk

IWMI vs. SMIG — 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

SMIG

SMIG Risk / Return Rank: 49
SMIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
SMIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
SMIG Omega Ratio Rank: 48
SMIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
SMIG Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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. SMIG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI) and Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF (SMIG). 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	SMIG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.22	1.43	+0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.10	2.16	+0.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.25	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.02	1.98	+2.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.56	5.17	+11.39

IWMI vs. SMIG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWMI Sharpe Ratio is 2.22, which is higher than the SMIG Sharpe Ratio of 1.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWMI and SMIG, 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. SMIG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWMI drawdown since its inception was -23.88%, which is greater than SMIG's maximum drawdown of -19.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWMI and SMIG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWMI	SMIG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.88%	-19.65%	-4.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.40%	-8.52%	+0.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.23%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.86%	-6.34%	+2.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.04%	3.25%	-1.21%

Volatility

IWMI vs. SMIG - Volatility Comparison

NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI) has a higher volatility of 3.93% compared to Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF (SMIG) at 3.27%. This indicates that IWMI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SMIG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWMI	SMIG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.93%	3.27%	+0.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.73%	8.58%	+3.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.34%	11.83%	+3.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.67%	16.04%	+1.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.67%	16.04%	+1.63%

IWMI vs. SMIG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

IWMI vs. SMIG - Dividend Comparison

IWMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.50%, more than SMIG's 1.64% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	13.50%	14.05%	8.78%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SMIG Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF	1.64%	1.82%	1.75%	1.91%	2.00%	0.50%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWMI and SMIG in my portfolio?

IWMI and SMIG have a correlation of 0.69, 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 SMIG?

IWMI has higher volatility (3.93%) compared to SMIG (3.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWMI dropped -23.88% vs SMIG's -19.65%.

Which ETF is better, IWMI or SMIG?

On 1-year performance, IWMI leads with 33.64% vs 16.78% for SMIG. On fees, SMIG is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, SMIG has been the lower-risk option at 3.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWMI or SMIG?

Over the 1-year period, IWMI has performed better with a 33.64% return vs 16.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWMI or SMIG?

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

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

IWMI has the higher dividend yield at 13.50%, compared with 1.64% for SMIG.

What is the main difference between IWMI and SMIG?

IWMI is categorized as Derivative Income, while SMIG is Small Cap Value Equities. They also come from different issuers: Neos and Bahl & Gaynor. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for IWMI and 0.60% for SMIG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 1.43), 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.