QQQS vs. IWMW

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

QQQS (Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF) and IWMW (iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QQQS is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Innovators Completion Cap Total Return Index, while IWMW is a Derivative Income fund tracking the Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, QQQS returned 82.03% vs 25.30% for IWMW. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QQQS charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IWMW.

Performance

QQQS vs. IWMW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF (QQQS) and iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQQS achieves a 29.69% return, which is significantly higher than IWMW's 9.09% return.

QQQS

• 1D: 1.90%
• 1M: 6.24%
• YTD: 29.69%
• 6M: 27.78%
• 1Y: 82.03%
• 3Y*: 16.95%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWMW

• 1D: 0.55%
• 1M: 2.91%
• YTD: 9.09%
• 6M: 9.30%
• 1Y: 25.30%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QQQS vs. IWMW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QQQS Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF	29.69%	23.03%	10.58%
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	9.09%	7.82%	6.09%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQS and IWMW is 0.85, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 18, 2024	0.84

The correlation between QQQS and IWMW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

QQQS vs. IWMW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQQS	IWMW
Technology	42.1%	19.2%
Healthcare	41.0%	16.6%
Consumer Cyclical	5.2%	7.8%
Industrials	4.8%	17.6%
Communication Services	2.4%	2.0%
Energy	2.2%	6.4%
Consumer Defensive	1.4%	2.2%
Basic Materials	1.0%	4.8%
Financial Services	0.0%	16.0%
Real Estate	-	5.8%
Utilities	-	3.1%

Return for Risk

QQQS vs. IWMW — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQQS

QQQS Risk / Return Rank: 87
QQQS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
QQQS Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
QQQS Omega Ratio Rank: 76
QQQS Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
QQQS Martin Ratio Rank: 90

IWMW

IWMW Risk / Return Rank: 67
IWMW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
IWMW Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
IWMW Omega Ratio Rank: 70
IWMW Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
IWMW Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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.

QQQS vs. IWMW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF (QQQS) and iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW). 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.

	QQQS	IWMW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.07	2.07	+1.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.85	2.81	+1.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.41	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.05	3.66	+2.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.20	12.67	+7.53
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QQQS vs. IWMW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQS Sharpe Ratio is 3.07, which is higher than the IWMW Sharpe Ratio of 2.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQS and IWMW, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QQQS	IWMW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.07	2.07	+1.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.65	0.66	-0.01

Drawdowns

QQQS vs. IWMW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQS drawdown since its inception was -38.06%, which is greater than IWMW's maximum drawdown of -21.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQS and IWMW.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQS	IWMW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.06%	-21.82%	-16.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.63%	-6.94%	-6.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.32%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.69%	0.00%	-0.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.25%	-3.84%	-9.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.07%	2.00%	+2.07%

Volatility

QQQS vs. IWMW - Volatility Comparison

Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF (QQQS) has a higher volatility of 7.46% compared to iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) at 3.01%. This indicates that QQQS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWMW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQQS	IWMW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.46%	3.01%	+4.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.55%	8.76%	+9.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.84%	12.29%	+14.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.34%	16.11%	+12.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.34%	16.11%	+12.23%

QQQS vs. IWMW - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQQS has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than IWMW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQQS vs. IWMW - Dividend Comparison

QQQS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.68%, less than IWMW's 22.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	22.28%	20.98%	17.73%	0.00%	0.00%
QQQS Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF	2.68%	3.48%	0.80%	0.68%	0.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQQS and IWMW in my portfolio?

QQQS and IWMW have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QQQS or IWMW?

QQQS has higher volatility (7.46%) compared to IWMW (3.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQQS dropped -38.06% vs IWMW's -21.82%.

Which ETF is better, QQQS or IWMW?

On 1-year performance, QQQS leads with 82.03% vs 25.30% for IWMW. On fees, QQQS is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, IWMW has been the lower-risk option at 3.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QQQS or IWMW?

Over the 1-year period, QQQS has performed better with a 82.03% return vs 25.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQQS or IWMW?

QQQS is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for IWMW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QQQS or IWMW?

IWMW has the higher dividend yield at 22.28%, compared with 2.68% for QQQS.

What is the main difference between QQQS and IWMW?

QQQS is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while IWMW is Derivative Income. QQQS tracks Nasdaq Innovators Completion Cap Total Return Index, while IWMW tracks Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for QQQS and 0.39% for IWMW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.07 vs 2.07), 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.