QQQH vs. IWM
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 actively managed by Neos, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. QQQH is actively managed, while IWM is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QQQH returned 7.28%/yr vs 7.09%/yr for IWM. Their 0.62 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. QQQH charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
QQQH vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QQQH achieves a 3.59% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 19.36% return.
QQQH
- 1D
- 1.91%
- 1M
- -3.71%
- 6M
- 2.10%
- YTD
- 3.59%
- 1Y
- 10.02%
- 3Y*
- 16.69%
- 5Y*
- 7.28%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 9.56%
IWM
- 1D
- 1.39%
- 1M
- -2.62%
- 6M
- 11.56%
- YTD
- 19.36%
- 1Y
- 33.43%
- 3Y*
- 15.12%
- 5Y*
- 7.09%
- 10Y*
- 10.59%
- ALL TIME*
- 8.75%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6.69B | $6.23B | $7.44B | |
| $1.63M | $1.64M | $1.78M |
QQQH vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QQQH NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF | 3.59% | 14.17% | 25.98% | 30.96% | -28.35% | 9.76% | 18.62% | 0.47% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 19.36% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -20.48% | 14.54% | 20.03% | -0.04% |
Correlation
The correlation between QQQH and IWM is 0.68, 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. | 0.68 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.62 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer 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 0.62 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.
QQQH vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
QQQH
IWM
Technology
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Consumer Defensive
Industrials
Healthcare
Utilities
Basic Materials
Energy
Financial Services
Real Estate
Technology
QQQH
IWM
Communication Services
QQQH
IWM
Consumer Cyclical
QQQH
IWM
Consumer Defensive
QQQH
IWM
Industrials
QQQH
IWM
Healthcare
QQQH
IWM
Utilities
QQQH
IWM
Basic Materials
QQQH
IWM
Energy
QQQH
IWM
Financial Services
QQQH
IWM
Real Estate
QQQH
IWM
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
QQQH vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
QQQH
IWM
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 ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.85 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.21 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.16 | 1.29 | -0.13 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.45 | 3.05 | -1.60 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.37 | 10.81 | -5.44 |
Loading charts...
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.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QQQH | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest 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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.02% | -2.62% | -1.40% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.12% | -10.71% | +2.59% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.87% | 3.11% | -1.24% |
Volatility
QQQH vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF (QQQH) has a higher volatility of 4.03% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 3.81%. This indicates that QQQH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QQQH | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.03% | 3.81% | +0.22% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.28% | 14.11% | -4.83% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.47% | 19.41% | -7.94% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.45% | 22.48% | -9.03% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.46% | 23.01% | -9.55% |
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 9.21%, more than IWM's 0.91% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 0.91% | 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 | 9.21% | 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
QQQH and IWM have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
QQQH has higher volatility (4.03%) compared to IWM (3.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQQH dropped -31.24% vs IWM's -59.05%.
On 5-year performance, QQQH leads with 7.28% vs 7.09% for IWM. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 3.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, QQQH has performed better with a 7.28% return vs 7.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for QQQH.
QQQH has the higher dividend yield at 9.21%, compared with 0.91% for 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.
IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.73 vs 0.88), 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.
Find the right allocation for QQQH and IWM
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer