MARO vs. RYLD

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

MARO (YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF) and RYLD (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. MARO is actively managed, while RYLD is passively managed. Over the past year, MARO returned -37.73% vs 24.93% for RYLD. Their 0.56 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. MARO charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for RYLD.

Performance

MARO vs. RYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF (MARO) 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, MARO achieves a 5.71% return, which is significantly lower than RYLD's 12.29% return.

MARO

• 1D: -2.09%
• 1M: -7.33%
• 6M: 4.46%
• YTD: 5.71%
• 1Y: -37.73%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -41.18%

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)
MARO YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF	$1.77M	$2.35M	$3.24M
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	$10.07M	$9.36M	$9.08M

MARO vs. RYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MARO YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF	5.71%	-48.05%	-23.63%
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	12.29%	5.65%	-1.46%

Correlation

The correlation between MARO and RYLD is 0.53, 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.	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 10, 2024	0.56

The correlation between MARO and RYLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MARO vs. RYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

MARO

MARO Risk / Return Rank: 5
MARO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
MARO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
MARO Omega Ratio Rank: 5
MARO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
MARO Martin Ratio Rank: 5

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.

MARO vs. RYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF (MARO) 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.

	MARO	RYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.61	2.17	-2.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.63	3.05	-3.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.93	1.45	-0.53
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.61	3.67	-4.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.95	15.02	-15.97

MARO vs. RYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MARO Sharpe Ratio is -0.61, which is lower than the RYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MARO 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

MARO vs. RYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MARO drawdown since its inception was -71.75%, which is greater than RYLD's maximum drawdown of -41.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MARO and RYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	MARO	RYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-71.75%	-41.53%	-30.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-65.51%	-6.29%	-59.22%
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	-59.72%	-0.37%	-59.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-43.17%	-8.65%	-34.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	41.97%	1.54%	+40.43%

Volatility

MARO vs. RYLD - Volatility Comparison

YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF (MARO) has a higher volatility of 26.53% compared to Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) at 2.07%. This indicates that MARO'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

	MARO	RYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	26.53%	2.07%	+24.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	52.21%	7.73%	+44.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	65.49%	10.67%	+54.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	66.53%	13.97%	+52.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	66.53%	17.04%	+49.49%

MARO vs. RYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

MARO has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than RYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

MARO vs. RYLD - Dividend Comparison

MARO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 202.73%, more than RYLD's 11.62% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
MARO YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF	202.73%	277.68%	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 MARO and RYLD in my portfolio?

MARO and RYLD have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MARO or RYLD?

MARO has higher volatility (26.53%) compared to RYLD (2.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MARO dropped -71.75% vs RYLD's -41.53%.

Which ETF is better, MARO or RYLD?

On 1-year performance, RYLD leads with 24.93% vs -37.73% for MARO. 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, MARO or RYLD?

Over the 1-year period, RYLD has performed better with a 24.93% return vs -37.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MARO or RYLD?

RYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for MARO.

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

MARO has the higher dividend yield at 202.73%, compared with 11.62% for RYLD.

What is the main difference between MARO and RYLD?

They also come from different issuers: YieldMax and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for MARO and 0.60% for RYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs -0.61), 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.