IWMW vs. RYLD

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

IWMW (iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF) and RYLD (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF) are both Derivative Income funds - IWMW tracks the Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index while RYLD tracks the CBOE Russell 2000 BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IWMW returned 27.46% vs 24.71% for RYLD. Their correlation of 0.94 means they have usually moved in the same direction. IWMW charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for RYLD.

Performance

IWMW vs. RYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) 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, IWMW achieves a 16.00% return, which is significantly higher than RYLD's 14.18% return.

IWMW

• 1D: 0.93%
• 1M: 2.47%
• 6M: 13.33%
• YTD: 16.00%
• 1Y: 27.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.47%

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)
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	$588.35K	$501.88K	$531.86K
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	$10.56M	$9.60M	$9.13M

IWMW vs. RYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	16.00%	7.82%	5.85%
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	14.18%	5.65%	8.33%

Correlation

The correlation between IWMW and RYLD is 0.93, 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.	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 15, 2024	0.94

The correlation between IWMW and RYLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWMW vs. RYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWMW	RYLD
Healthcare	20.3%	20.3%
Financial Services	17.6%	17.8%
Technology	14.5%	14.5%
Industrials	14.1%	14.1%
Consumer Cyclical	9.2%	9.2%
Real Estate	6.7%	6.8%
Energy	5.5%	5.5%
Basic Materials	4.4%	4.4%
Utilities	2.8%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	2.6%
Communication Services	2.2%	2.2%

Return for Risk

IWMW vs. RYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWMW

IWMW Risk / Return Rank: 86
IWMW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
IWMW Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
IWMW Omega Ratio Rank: 89
IWMW Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
IWMW Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

IWMW vs. RYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) 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.

	IWMW	RYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.21	2.38	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.99	3.34	-0.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.50	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.97	3.94	+0.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.75	16.16	-2.41

IWMW vs. RYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWMW Sharpe Ratio is 2.21, which is comparable to the RYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWMW 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

IWMW vs. RYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWMW drawdown since its inception was -21.82%, smaller than the maximum RYLD drawdown of -41.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWMW and RYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWMW	RYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.82%	-41.53%	+19.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.94%	-6.29%	-0.65%
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	-3.60%	-8.64%	+5.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.00%	1.53%	+0.47%

Volatility

IWMW vs. RYLD - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) has a higher volatility of 3.21% compared to Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) at 2.34%. This indicates that IWMW'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

	IWMW	RYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.21%	2.34%	+0.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.40%	7.72%	+1.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.61%	10.57%	+2.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.81%	13.98%	+1.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.81%	17.04%	-1.23%

IWMW vs. RYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWMW has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than RYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWMW vs. RYLD - Dividend Comparison

IWMW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 20.25%, more than RYLD's 11.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	20.25%	20.98%	17.73%	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 IWMW and RYLD in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, IWMW and RYLD 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, IWMW or RYLD?

IWMW has higher volatility (3.21%) compared to RYLD (2.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWMW dropped -21.82% vs RYLD's -41.53%.

Which ETF is better, IWMW or RYLD?

On 1-year performance, IWMW leads with 27.46% vs 24.71% for RYLD. On fees, IWMW is cheaper at 0.39% 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, IWMW or RYLD?

Over the 1-year period, IWMW has performed better with a 27.46% return vs 24.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWMW or RYLD?

IWMW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for RYLD.

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

IWMW has the higher dividend yield at 20.25%, compared with 11.43% for RYLD.

What is the main difference between IWMW and RYLD?

IWMW tracks Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index, while RYLD tracks CBOE Russell 2000 BuyWrite Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for IWMW and 0.60% for RYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.38 vs 2.21), 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.