QQQH vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 20, 2026

QQQH (NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QQQH is a Nasdaq-100 fund managed by Neos, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Over the past 5 years, QQQH returned 9.04%/yr vs 7.21%/yr for IWM. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QQQH charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

QQQH vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF (QQQH) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQQH achieves a 7.73% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 20.58% return.

QQQH

• 1D: 1.57%
• 1M: 1.79%
• YTD: 7.73%
• 6M: 7.96%
• 1Y: 19.49%
• 3Y*: 18.87%
• 5Y*: 9.04%
• 10Y*: —

IWM

• 1D: 1.97%
• 1M: 5.87%
• YTD: 20.58%
• 6M: 18.35%
• 1Y: 42.46%
• 3Y*: 18.09%
• 5Y*: 7.21%
• 10Y*: 11.32%

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

QQQH vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
QQQH NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF	7.73%	14.17%	25.98%	30.96%	-28.35%	9.76%	18.62%	0.47%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	20.58%	12.66%	11.38%	16.83%	-20.48%	14.54%	20.03%	-0.04%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQH and IWM is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 20, 2019	0.62

The correlation between QQQH and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

QQQH vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQQH	IWM
Technology	58.0%	19.2%
Communication Services	14.5%	2.5%
Consumer Cyclical	11.5%	7.9%
Consumer Defensive	6.5%	2.2%
Healthcare	3.7%	16.3%
Industrials	2.8%	17.9%
Utilities	1.2%	2.7%
Basic Materials	1.1%	4.7%
Energy	0.5%	5.4%
Financial Services	0.2%	15.4%
Real Estate	0.1%	5.9%

Return for Risk

QQQH vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQQH

QQQH Risk / Return Rank: 60
QQQH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
QQQH Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
QQQH Omega Ratio Rank: 61
QQQH Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
QQQH Martin Ratio Rank: 67

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 71
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 61
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

QQQH vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF (QQQH) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). 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.

	QQQH	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.85	2.17	-0.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.52	2.96	-0.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.35	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.81	3.87	-1.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.80	13.69	-1.89

QQQH vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQH Sharpe Ratio is 1.85, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQH and IWM, 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

QQQH vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQH drawdown since its inception was -31.24%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQH and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQH	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.24%	-59.05%	+27.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.96%	-11.03%	+4.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.18%	-27.50%	+12.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.24%	-31.91%	+0.67%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.19%	0.00%	-0.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.22%	-10.75%	+2.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.66%	3.11%	-1.45%

Volatility

QQQH vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF (QQQH) is 4.81%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 6.81%. This indicates that QQQH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQQH	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.81%	6.81%	-2.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.51%	14.31%	-5.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.56%	19.70%	-9.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.32%	22.61%	-9.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.44%	23.09%	-9.65%

QQQH vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQQH has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQQH vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

QQQH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.75%, more than IWM's 0.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	0.90%	1.04%	1.15%	1.35%	1.48%	0.94%	1.04%	1.26%	1.40%	1.26%	1.38%	1.54%
QQQH NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF	8.75%	8.86%	7.53%	7.18%	9.05%	7.77%	7.48%	0.65%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQQH and IWM in my portfolio?

QQQH and IWM 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, QQQH or IWM?

IWM has higher volatility (6.81%) compared to QQQH (4.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQQH dropped -31.24% vs IWM's -59.05%.

Which ETF is better, QQQH or IWM?

On 5-year performance, QQQH leads with 9.04% vs 7.21% for IWM. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, QQQH has been the lower-risk option at 4.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QQQH or IWM?

Over the 5-year period, QQQH has performed better with a 9.04% return vs 7.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQQH or IWM?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for QQQH.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QQQH or IWM?

QQQH has the higher dividend yield at 8.75%, compared with 0.90% for IWM.

What is the main difference between QQQH and IWM?

QQQH is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Neos and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for QQQH and 0.19% for IWM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs 1.85), 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.