RSSL vs. RYLD

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

RSSL (Global X Russell 2000 ETF) and RYLD (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RSSL is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 RIC Capped Index, while RYLD is a Derivative Income fund tracking the CBOE Russell 2000 BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, RSSL returned 36.89% vs 24.93% for RYLD. Their correlation of 0.88 means they have usually moved in the same direction. RSSL charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for RYLD.

Performance

RSSL vs. RYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Russell 2000 ETF (RSSL) 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, RSSL achieves a 18.67% return, which is significantly higher than RYLD's 12.29% return.

RSSL

• 1D: -0.53%
• 1M: -2.19%
• 6M: 12.69%
• YTD: 18.67%
• 1Y: 36.89%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.84%

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)
RSSL Global X Russell 2000 ETF	$577.43K	$3.15M	$2.35M
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	$10.07M	$9.36M	$9.08M

RSSL vs. RYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RSSL Global X Russell 2000 ETF	18.67%	12.87%	10.21%
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	12.29%	5.65%	8.96%

Correlation

The correlation between RSSL and RYLD is 0.87, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2024	0.88

The correlation between RSSL and RYLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

RSSL vs. RYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RSSL	RYLD
Healthcare	20.2%	20.3%
Financial Services	17.7%	17.8%
Technology	14.8%	14.5%
Industrials	14.1%	14.1%
Consumer Cyclical	9.2%	9.2%
Real Estate	6.7%	6.8%
Energy	5.4%	5.5%
Basic Materials	4.4%	4.4%
Utilities	2.7%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	2.6%
Communication Services	2.2%	2.2%

Return for Risk

RSSL vs. RYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSSL

RSSL Risk / Return Rank: 78
RSSL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
RSSL Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
RSSL Omega Ratio Rank: 70
RSSL Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
RSSL Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

RSSL vs. RYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Russell 2000 ETF (RSSL) 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.

	RSSL	RYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.78	2.17	-0.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.52	3.05	-0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.45	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.15	3.67	-0.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.08	15.02	-3.95

RSSL vs. RYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSSL Sharpe Ratio is 1.78, which is comparable to the RYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSSL 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

RSSL vs. RYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSSL drawdown since its inception was -27.79%, smaller than the maximum RYLD drawdown of -41.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSSL and RYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSSL	RYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.79%	-41.53%	+13.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.93%	-6.29%	-4.64%
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	-3.07%	-0.37%	-2.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.38%	-8.65%	+3.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.10%	1.54%	+1.56%

Volatility

RSSL vs. RYLD - Volatility Comparison

Global X Russell 2000 ETF (RSSL) has a higher volatility of 3.99% compared to Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) at 2.07%. This indicates that RSSL'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

	RSSL	RYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.99%	2.07%	+1.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.05%	7.73%	+6.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.37%	10.67%	+8.70%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.12%	13.97%	+8.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.12%	17.04%	+5.08%

RSSL vs. RYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSSL has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than RYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSSL vs. RYLD - Dividend Comparison

RSSL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.24%, less than RYLD's 11.62% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
RSSL Global X Russell 2000 ETF	1.24%	1.35%	0.99%	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 RSSL and RYLD in my portfolio?

RSSL and RYLD have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RSSL or RYLD?

RSSL has higher volatility (3.99%) compared to RYLD (2.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSSL dropped -27.79% vs RYLD's -41.53%.

Which ETF is better, RSSL or RYLD?

On 1-year performance, RSSL leads with 36.89% vs 24.93% for RYLD. On fees, RSSL is cheaper at 0.08% 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, RSSL or RYLD?

Over the 1-year period, RSSL has performed better with a 36.89% return vs 24.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSSL or RYLD?

RSSL is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for RYLD.

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

RYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.62%, compared with 1.24% for RSSL.

What is the main difference between RSSL and RYLD?

RSSL is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while RYLD is Derivative Income. RSSL tracks Russell 2000 RIC Capped Index, while RYLD tracks CBOE Russell 2000 BuyWrite Index. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for RSSL and 0.60% for RYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs 1.78), 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.