NFLW vs. RYLD

Last updated Aug 6, 2026

NFLW (Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF) and RYLD (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. NFLW is actively managed, while RYLD is passively managed. Over the past year, NFLW returned -43.12% vs 24.20% for RYLD. Their 0.05 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. NFLW charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for RYLD.

Performance

NFLW vs. RYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF (NFLW) 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, NFLW achieves a -26.10% return, which is significantly lower than RYLD's 14.18% return.

NFLW

• 1D: 1.23%
• 1M: -2.99%
• 6M: -10.72%
• YTD: -26.10%
• 1Y: -43.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -43.84%

RYLD

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 2.51%
• 6M: 11.58%
• YTD: 14.18%
• 1Y: 24.20%
• 3Y*: 8.92%
• 5Y*: 3.32%
• 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)
NFLW Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF	$211.51K	$228.02K	$317.84K
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	$10.88M	$9.80M	$9.16M

NFLW vs. RYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NFLW Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF	-26.10%	-29.54%
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	14.18%	11.22%

Correlation

The correlation between NFLW and RYLD is 0.04, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 18, 2025	0.05

NFLW vs. RYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NFLW	RYLD
Communication Services	20.0%	2.2%
Basic Materials	-	4.4%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.6%
Energy	-	5.5%
Financial Services	-	17.8%
Healthcare	-	20.3%
Industrials	-	14.1%
Real Estate	-	6.8%
Technology	-	14.5%
Utilities	-	2.8%

Return for Risk

NFLW vs. RYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

NFLW

NFLW Risk / Return Rank: 2
NFLW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
NFLW Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
NFLW Omega Ratio Rank: 1
NFLW Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
NFLW Martin Ratio Rank: 2

RYLD

RYLD Risk / Return Rank: 89
RYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
RYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
RYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 92
RYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
RYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

NFLW vs. RYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF (NFLW) 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.

	NFLW	RYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.05	2.33	-3.38
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.54	3.28	-4.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.80	1.49	-0.68
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.79	3.86	-4.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.34	15.83	-17.17

NFLW vs. RYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NFLW Sharpe Ratio is -1.05, which is lower than the RYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NFLW 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

NFLW vs. RYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NFLW drawdown since its inception was -57.88%, which is greater than RYLD's maximum drawdown of -41.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NFLW and RYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	NFLW	RYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-57.88%	-41.53%	-16.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.42%	-6.29%	-48.13%
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	-52.93%	0.00%	-52.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.63%	-8.64%	-21.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	32.14%	1.53%	+30.61%

Volatility

NFLW vs. RYLD - Volatility Comparison

Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF (NFLW) has a higher volatility of 11.26% compared to Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) at 2.31%. This indicates that NFLW'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

	NFLW	RYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.26%	2.31%	+8.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.73%	7.72%	+25.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	41.32%	10.42%	+30.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	40.46%	13.98%	+26.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	40.46%	17.03%	+23.43%

NFLW vs. RYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

NFLW vs. RYLD - Dividend Comparison

NFLW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 77.02%, more than RYLD's 11.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
NFLW Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF	77.02%	38.89%	0.00%	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 NFLW and RYLD in my portfolio?

NFLW and RYLD have a correlation of 0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NFLW or RYLD?

NFLW has higher volatility (11.26%) compared to RYLD (2.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NFLW dropped -57.88% vs RYLD's -41.53%.

Which ETF is better, NFLW or RYLD?

On 1-year performance, RYLD leads with 24.20% vs -43.12% for NFLW. On fees, RYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, RYLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NFLW or RYLD?

Over the 1-year period, RYLD has performed better with a 24.20% return vs -43.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NFLW or RYLD?

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

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

NFLW has the higher dividend yield at 77.02%, compared with 11.43% for RYLD.

What is the main difference between NFLW and RYLD?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs -1.05), 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.