IWMW vs. XRMI

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

IWMW (iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF) and XRMI (Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF) are both Derivative Income funds - IWMW tracks the Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index while XRMI tracks the Cboe S&P 500 Risk Managed Income Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IWMW returned 24.97% vs 8.70% for XRMI. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWMW charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for XRMI.

Performance

IWMW vs. XRMI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) and Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF (XRMI). 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 higher than XRMI's 1.60% return.

IWMW

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

XRMI

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.34%
• YTD: 1.60%
• 6M: 1.15%
• 1Y: 8.70%
• 3Y*: 6.88%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWMW vs. XRMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	12.03%	7.82%	5.85%
XRMI Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF	1.60%	4.60%	10.86%

Correlation

The correlation between IWMW and XRMI is 0.60, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 15, 2024	0.56

The correlation between IWMW and XRMI has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWMW vs. XRMI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWMW	XRMI
Technology	19.1%	39.5%
Industrials	18.0%	7.9%
Healthcare	16.3%	8.5%
Financial Services	15.3%	11.6%
Consumer Cyclical	8.0%	9.5%
Real Estate	5.9%	1.8%
Energy	5.4%	3.1%
Basic Materials	4.7%	1.7%
Utilities	2.7%	2.7%
Communication Services	2.4%	10.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	4.6%

Return for Risk

IWMW vs. XRMI — 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

XRMI

XRMI Risk / Return Rank: 49
XRMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
XRMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
XRMI Omega Ratio Rank: 55
XRMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
XRMI Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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. XRMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) and Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF (XRMI). 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	XRMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.01	1.59	+0.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.74	2.22	+0.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.31	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.61	1.74	+1.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.46	7.01	+5.45

IWMW vs. XRMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWMW Sharpe Ratio is 2.01, which is comparable to the XRMI Sharpe Ratio of 1.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWMW and XRMI, 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. XRMI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWMW drawdown since its inception was -21.82%, which is greater than XRMI's maximum drawdown of -15.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWMW and XRMI.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWMW	XRMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.82%	-15.31%	-6.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.94%	-5.02%	-1.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-8.34%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.21%	-0.58%	+0.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.76%	-5.87%	+2.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.01%	1.24%	+0.77%

Volatility

IWMW vs. XRMI - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) has a higher volatility of 3.39% compared to Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF (XRMI) at 1.70%. This indicates that IWMW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XRMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWMW	XRMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.39%	1.70%	+1.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.30%	4.43%	+4.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.48%	5.50%	+6.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.05%	6.90%	+9.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.05%	6.90%	+9.15%

IWMW vs. XRMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

IWMW vs. XRMI - Dividend Comparison

IWMW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 21.69%, more than XRMI's 12.73% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	21.69%	20.98%	17.73%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XRMI Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF	12.73%	12.35%	11.86%	12.62%	12.84%	2.93%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWMW and XRMI in my portfolio?

IWMW and XRMI have a correlation of 0.60, 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 XRMI?

IWMW has higher volatility (3.39%) compared to XRMI (1.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWMW dropped -21.82% vs XRMI's -15.31%.

Which ETF is better, IWMW or XRMI?

On 1-year performance, IWMW leads with 24.97% vs 8.70% for XRMI. On fees, IWMW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, XRMI has been the lower-risk option at 1.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWMW or XRMI?

Over the 1-year period, IWMW has performed better with a 24.97% return vs 8.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWMW or XRMI?

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

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

IWMW has the higher dividend yield at 21.69%, compared with 12.73% for XRMI.

What is the main difference between IWMW and XRMI?

IWMW tracks Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index, while XRMI tracks Cboe S&P 500 Risk Managed Income Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for IWMW and 0.60% for XRMI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWMW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.01 vs 1.59), 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.