IWMW vs. LQTI

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IWMW (iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF) and LQTI (FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. IWMW is passively managed, while LQTI is actively managed. Over the past year, IWMW returned 24.62% vs 5.69% for LQTI. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IWMW charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for LQTI.

Performance

IWMW vs. LQTI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) and FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWMW achieves a 8.49% return, which is significantly higher than LQTI's 0.16% return.

IWMW

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 3.04%
• YTD: 8.49%
• 6M: 8.94%
• 1Y: 24.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LQTI

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 0.41%
• YTD: 0.16%
• 6M: -0.04%
• 1Y: 5.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWMW vs. LQTI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	8.49%	3.17%
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	0.16%	6.69%

Correlation

The correlation between IWMW and LQTI is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 14, 2025	0.29

Return for Risk

IWMW vs. LQTI — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

IWMW

IWMW Risk / Return Rank: 64
IWMW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
IWMW Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
IWMW Omega Ratio Rank: 66
IWMW Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
IWMW Martin Ratio Rank: 67

LQTI

LQTI Risk / Return Rank: 32
LQTI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
LQTI Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
LQTI Omega Ratio Rank: 29
LQTI Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
LQTI Martin Ratio Rank: 34

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

IWMW vs. LQTI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) and FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI). 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.

	IWMW	LQTI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.01	1.12	+0.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.75	1.64	+1.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.19	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.56	1.68	+1.88
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.33	5.15	+7.18
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWMW vs. LQTI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWMW Sharpe Ratio is 2.01, which is higher than the LQTI Sharpe Ratio of 1.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWMW and LQTI, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IWMW	LQTI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.01	1.12	+0.89
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.64	0.88	-0.24

Drawdowns

IWMW vs. LQTI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWMW drawdown since its inception was -21.82%, which is greater than LQTI's maximum drawdown of -3.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWMW and LQTI.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWMW	LQTI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.82%	-3.41%	-18.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.94%	-3.41%	-3.53%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.34%	-1.44%	+1.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.85%	-0.88%	-2.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.00%	1.11%	+0.89%

Volatility

IWMW vs. LQTI - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) has a higher volatility of 3.03% compared to FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) at 1.65%. This indicates that IWMW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LQTI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWMW	LQTI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.03%	1.65%	+1.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.75%	4.02%	+4.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.32%	5.10%	+7.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.12%	5.97%	+10.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.12%	5.97%	+10.15%

IWMW vs. LQTI - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWMW has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than LQTI's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWMW vs. LQTI - Dividend Comparison

IWMW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 22.40%, more than LQTI's 9.11% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	22.40%	20.98%	17.73%
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	9.11%	7.01%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWMW and LQTI in my portfolio?

IWMW and LQTI have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWMW or LQTI?

IWMW has higher volatility (3.03%) compared to LQTI (1.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWMW dropped -21.82% vs LQTI's -3.41%.

Which ETF is better, IWMW or LQTI?

On 1-year performance, IWMW leads with 24.62% vs 5.69% for LQTI. On fees, IWMW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, LQTI has been the lower-risk option at 1.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWMW or LQTI?

Over the 1-year period, IWMW has performed better with a 24.62% return vs 5.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWMW or LQTI?

IWMW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for LQTI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IWMW or LQTI?

IWMW has the higher dividend yield at 22.40%, compared with 9.11% for LQTI.

What is the main difference between IWMW and LQTI?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for IWMW and 0.65% for LQTI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWMW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.01 vs 1.12), 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.