IWMW vs. RYLG

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

IWMW (iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF) and RYLG (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF) are both Derivative Income funds - IWMW tracks the Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index while RYLG tracks the Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IWMW returned 24.97% vs 29.14% for RYLG. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWMW charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RYLG.

Performance

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWMW achieves a 12.03% return, which is significantly lower than RYLG's 14.84% return.

IWMW

• 1D: 0.23%
• 1M: 4.49%
• YTD: 12.03%
• 6M: 10.74%
• 1Y: 24.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RYLG

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: 3.10%
• YTD: 14.84%
• 6M: 12.67%
• 1Y: 29.14%
• 3Y*: 13.93%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWMW vs. RYLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	12.03%	7.82%	5.85%
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	14.84%	9.39%	9.86%

Correlation

The correlation between IWMW and RYLG is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 15, 2024	0.93

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

IWMW vs. RYLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWMW	RYLG
Technology	19.1%	19.0%
Industrials	18.0%	18.0%
Healthcare	16.3%	16.3%
Financial Services	15.3%	15.5%
Consumer Cyclical	8.0%	8.0%
Real Estate	5.9%	5.9%
Energy	5.4%	5.4%
Basic Materials	4.7%	4.7%
Utilities	2.7%	2.8%
Communication Services	2.4%	2.4%
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	2.3%

Return for Risk

IWMW vs. RYLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWMW

IWMW Risk / Return Rank: 73
IWMW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
IWMW Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
IWMW Omega Ratio Rank: 77
IWMW Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
IWMW Martin Ratio Rank: 75

RYLG

RYLG Risk / Return Rank: 72
RYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
RYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
RYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 64
RYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
RYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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. RYLG - 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 & 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.

	IWMW	RYLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.01	1.95	+0.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.74	2.74	0.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.34	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.61	3.58	+0.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.46	13.73	-1.27

IWMW vs. RYLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWMW Sharpe Ratio is 2.01, which is comparable to the RYLG Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWMW 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

IWMW vs. RYLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWMW drawdown since its inception was -21.82%, roughly equal to the maximum RYLG drawdown of -22.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWMW and RYLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWMW	RYLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.82%	-22.37%	+0.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.94%	-8.18%	+1.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-22.37%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.21%	-0.46%	+0.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.76%	-4.09%	+0.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.01%	2.13%	-0.12%

Volatility

IWMW vs. RYLG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) is 3.39%, while Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) has a volatility of 4.12%. This indicates that IWMW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RYLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWMW	RYLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.39%	4.12%	-0.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.30%	11.09%	-1.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.48%	15.04%	-2.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.05%	17.14%	-1.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.05%	17.14%	-1.09%

IWMW vs. RYLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWMW has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than RYLG's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWMW vs. RYLG - Dividend Comparison

IWMW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 21.69%, more than RYLG's 10.26% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	21.69%	20.98%	17.73%	0.00%	0.00%
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	10.26%	10.82%	23.73%	5.78%	4.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWMW and RYLG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, IWMW 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, IWMW or RYLG?

RYLG has higher volatility (4.12%) compared to IWMW (3.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWMW dropped -21.82% vs RYLG's -22.37%.

Which ETF is better, IWMW or RYLG?

On 1-year performance, RYLG leads with 29.14% vs 24.97% for IWMW. On fees, RYLG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, IWMW has been the lower-risk option at 3.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWMW or RYLG?

Over the 1-year period, RYLG has performed better with a 29.14% return vs 24.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWMW or RYLG?

RYLG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for IWMW.

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

IWMW has the higher dividend yield at 21.69%, compared with 10.26% for RYLG.

What is the main difference between IWMW and RYLG?

IWMW tracks Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index, while RYLG tracks Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for IWMW and 0.35% for RYLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWMW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.01 vs 1.95), 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.