LFGY vs. RYLD

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

LFGY (YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF) and RYLD (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. LFGY is actively managed, while RYLD is passively managed. Over the past year, LFGY returned -0.86% vs 24.93% for RYLD. Their 0.66 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. LFGY charges 1.02%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for RYLD.

Performance

LFGY vs. RYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF (LFGY) 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, LFGY achieves a 6.34% return, which is significantly lower than RYLD's 12.29% return.

LFGY

• 1D: -1.42%
• 1M: -1.38%
• 6M: 5.38%
• YTD: 6.34%
• 1Y: -0.86%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -2.36%

RYLD

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 1.19%
• 6M: 10.16%
• YTD: 12.29%
• 1Y: 24.93%
• 3Y*: 8.04%
• 5Y*: 3.15%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.81%

*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)
LFGY YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF	$957.02K	$905.59K	$1.33M
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	$10.07M	$9.36M	$9.08M

LFGY vs. RYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LFGY YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF	6.34%	-9.35%
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	12.29%	6.17%

Correlation

The correlation between LFGY and RYLD is 0.66, 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.	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 14, 2025	0.66

The correlation between LFGY and RYLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

LFGY vs. RYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LFGY	RYLD
Financial Services	55.3%	17.8%
Technology	34.1%	14.5%
Communication Services	6.7%	2.2%
Consumer Cyclical	4.0%	9.2%
Basic Materials	-	4.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.6%
Energy	-	5.5%
Healthcare	-	20.3%
Industrials	-	14.1%
Real Estate	-	6.8%
Utilities	-	2.8%

Return for Risk

LFGY vs. RYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFGY

LFGY Risk / Return Rank: 9
LFGY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
LFGY Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
LFGY Omega Ratio Rank: 10
LFGY Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
LFGY Martin Ratio Rank: 8

RYLD

RYLD Risk / Return Rank: 90
RYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
RYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
RYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 92
RYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
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.

LFGY vs. RYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF (LFGY) 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.

	LFGY	RYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.15	2.17	-2.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.07	3.05	-2.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.45	-0.44
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.17	3.67	-3.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.36	15.02	-15.38

LFGY vs. RYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFGY Sharpe Ratio is -0.15, which is lower than the RYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFGY 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

LFGY vs. RYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFGY drawdown since its inception was -35.94%, smaller than the maximum RYLD drawdown of -41.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFGY and RYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFGY	RYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.94%	-41.53%	+5.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-35.94%	-6.29%	-29.65%
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	-18.77%	-0.37%	-18.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.12%	-8.65%	-5.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.27%	1.54%	+15.73%

Volatility

LFGY vs. RYLD - Volatility Comparison

YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF (LFGY) has a higher volatility of 14.26% compared to Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) at 2.07%. This indicates that LFGY'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

	LFGY	RYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.26%	2.07%	+12.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.33%	7.73%	+25.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	40.62%	10.67%	+29.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	42.60%	13.97%	+28.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	42.60%	17.04%	+25.56%

LFGY vs. RYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFGY has a 1.02% expense ratio, which is higher than RYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFGY vs. RYLD - Dividend Comparison

LFGY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 85.75%, more than RYLD's 11.62% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
LFGY YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF	85.75%	94.90%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	11.62%	12.00%	12.03%	12.64%	13.49%	12.35%	10.76%	6.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFGY and RYLD in my portfolio?

LFGY and RYLD have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LFGY or RYLD?

LFGY has higher volatility (14.26%) compared to RYLD (2.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFGY dropped -35.94% vs RYLD's -41.53%.

Which ETF is better, LFGY or RYLD?

On 1-year performance, RYLD leads with 24.93% vs -0.86% for LFGY. On fees, RYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, RYLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFGY or RYLD?

Over the 1-year period, RYLD has performed better with a 24.93% return vs -0.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFGY or RYLD?

RYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 1.02% for LFGY.

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

LFGY has the higher dividend yield at 85.75%, compared with 11.62% for RYLD.

What is the main difference between LFGY and RYLD?

They also come from different issuers: YieldMax and Global X. Their fees differ too: 1.02% for LFGY and 0.60% for RYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs -0.15), 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.