RYLD vs. AMDW

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

RYLD (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF) and AMDW (Roundhill AMD WeeklyPay ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. RYLD is passively managed, while AMDW is actively managed. Over the past year, RYLD returned 26.26% vs 214.50% for AMDW. Their 0.51 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. RYLD charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for AMDW.

Performance

RYLD vs. AMDW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) and Roundhill AMD WeeklyPay ETF (AMDW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RYLD achieves a 13.48% return, which is significantly lower than AMDW's 150.89% return.

RYLD

• 1D: 1.06%
• 1M: 2.27%
• 6M: 10.40%
• YTD: 13.48%
• 1Y: 26.26%
• 3Y*: 8.70%
• 5Y*: 3.43%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.95%

AMDW

• 1D: 1.68%
• 1M: -8.62%
• 6M: 113.70%
• YTD: 150.89%
• 1Y: 214.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 231.82%

*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)
AMDW Roundhill AMD WeeklyPay ETF	$10.29M	$9.36M	$8.60M
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	$9.87M	$9.43M	$9.08M

RYLD vs. AMDW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	13.48%	8.33%
AMDW Roundhill AMD WeeklyPay ETF	150.89%	36.56%

Correlation

The correlation between RYLD and AMDW is 0.51, 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.	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 24, 2025	0.51

The correlation between RYLD and AMDW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.51 - a consistent structural relationship.

RYLD vs. AMDW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RYLD	AMDW
Healthcare	20.3%	-
Financial Services	17.8%	-
Technology	14.5%	19.3%
Industrials	14.1%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.2%	-
Real Estate	6.8%	-
Energy	5.5%	-
Basic Materials	4.4%	-
Utilities	2.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	-
Communication Services	2.2%	-

Return for Risk

RYLD vs. AMDW — Risk / Return Rank

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

RYLD

RYLD Risk / Return Rank: 93
RYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
RYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
RYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 94
RYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
RYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 93

AMDW

AMDW Risk / Return Rank: 89
AMDW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
AMDW Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
AMDW Omega Ratio Rank: 83
AMDW Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
AMDW Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

RYLD vs. AMDW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) and Roundhill AMD WeeklyPay ETF (AMDW). 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.

	RYLD	AMDW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.50	2.52	-0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.52	3.02	+0.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.37	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.19	6.23	-2.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.17	12.22	+4.95

RYLD vs. AMDW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RYLD Sharpe Ratio is 2.50, which is comparable to the AMDW Sharpe Ratio of 2.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RYLD and AMDW, 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

RYLD vs. AMDW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RYLD drawdown since its inception was -41.53%, which is greater than AMDW's maximum drawdown of -34.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RYLD and AMDW.

Drawdown Indicators

	RYLD	AMDW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.53%	-34.64%	-6.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.29%	-34.64%	+28.35%
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	0.00%	-20.07%	+20.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.65%	-13.99%	+5.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.53%	17.63%	-16.10%

Volatility

RYLD vs. AMDW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) is 2.30%, while Roundhill AMD WeeklyPay ETF (AMDW) has a volatility of 28.57%. This indicates that RYLD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AMDW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RYLD	AMDW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.30%	28.57%	-26.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.74%	66.95%	-59.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.58%	85.77%	-75.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.98%	84.89%	-70.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.04%	84.89%	-67.85%

RYLD vs. AMDW - Expense Ratio Comparison

RYLD has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than AMDW's 0.99% expense ratio.

Dividends

RYLD vs. AMDW - Dividend Comparison

RYLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.50%, less than AMDW's 55.51% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
AMDW Roundhill AMD WeeklyPay ETF	55.51%	34.78%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	11.50%	12.00%	12.03%	12.64%	13.49%	12.35%	10.76%	6.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RYLD and AMDW in my portfolio?

RYLD and AMDW have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RYLD or AMDW?

AMDW has higher volatility (28.57%) compared to RYLD (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RYLD dropped -41.53% vs AMDW's -34.64%.

Which ETF is better, RYLD or AMDW?

On 1-year performance, AMDW leads with 214.50% vs 26.26% for RYLD. On fees, RYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, RYLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RYLD or AMDW?

Over the 1-year period, AMDW has performed better with a 214.50% return vs 26.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RYLD or AMDW?

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

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

AMDW has the higher dividend yield at 55.51%, compared with 11.50% for RYLD.

What is the main difference between RYLD and AMDW?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AMDW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.52 vs 2.50), 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.