RYLD vs. GDMA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RYLD (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF) and GDMA (Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF) are both Hedge Fund funds. RYLD is passively managed, while GDMA is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, RYLD returned 2.69%/yr vs 7.66%/yr for GDMA. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RYLD charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for GDMA.

Performance

RYLD vs. GDMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) and Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RYLD achieves a 8.33% return, which is significantly lower than GDMA's 11.18% return.

RYLD

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 2.78%
• YTD: 8.33%
• 6M: 9.14%
• 1Y: 21.47%
• 3Y*: 7.45%
• 5Y*: 2.69%
• 10Y*: —

GDMA

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: 1.83%
• YTD: 11.18%
• 6M: 14.08%
• 1Y: 32.26%
• 3Y*: 16.91%
• 5Y*: 7.66%
• 10Y*: —

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

RYLD vs. GDMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	8.33%	5.65%	10.13%	0.27%	-13.03%	22.13%	-0.44%	8.92%
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	11.18%	25.29%	7.44%	1.72%	-2.08%	3.95%	21.08%	7.84%

Correlation

The correlation between RYLD and GDMA is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.51
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.31
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 23, 2019	0.40

The correlation between RYLD and GDMA shifts across timeframes, from 0.31 (5 years) to 0.51 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RYLD vs. GDMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RYLD	GDMA
Financial Services	104.9%	14.5%
Industrials	17.5%	14.4%
Technology	16.8%	23.4%
Healthcare	16.5%	5.5%
Consumer Cyclical	8.4%	8.8%
Real Estate	6.2%	1.6%
Energy	6.2%	10.0%
Basic Materials	4.8%	9.0%
Utilities	2.9%	2.4%
Communication Services	2.5%	7.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	3.5%

Return for Risk

RYLD vs. GDMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

RYLD

RYLD Risk / Return Rank: 66
RYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
RYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
RYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 69
RYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
RYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 73

GDMA

GDMA Risk / Return Rank: 74
GDMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
GDMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
GDMA Omega Ratio Rank: 77
GDMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
GDMA Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

RYLD vs. GDMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) and Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA). 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.

	RYLD	GDMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.03	2.47	-0.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.86	3.21	-0.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.47	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.43	4.30	-0.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.86	11.92	+1.94
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RYLD vs. GDMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RYLD Sharpe Ratio is 2.03, which is comparable to the GDMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RYLD and GDMA, 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

	RYLD	GDMA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.03	2.47	-0.44
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.19	0.80	-0.60
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.32	0.89	-0.57

Drawdowns

RYLD vs. GDMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RYLD drawdown since its inception was -41.53%, which is greater than GDMA's maximum drawdown of -16.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RYLD and GDMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	RYLD	GDMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.53%	-16.66%	-24.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.29%	-7.53%	+1.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.05%	-7.53%	-11.52%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.33%	-12.74%	-8.59%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.19%	-1.06%	+0.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.84%	-3.78%	-5.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.55%	2.71%	-1.16%

Volatility

RYLD vs. GDMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) is 2.02%, while Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) has a volatility of 6.18%. This indicates that RYLD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GDMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RYLD	GDMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.02%	6.18%	-4.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.60%	10.03%	-2.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.67%	13.12%	-2.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.03%	9.67%	+4.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.20%	10.97%	+6.23%

RYLD vs. GDMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

RYLD has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than GDMA's 0.77% expense ratio.

Dividends

RYLD vs. GDMA - Dividend Comparison

RYLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.65%, more than GDMA's 2.51% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	2.51%	2.79%	2.32%	4.14%	1.18%	2.10%	0.62%	3.17%
RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF	11.65%	12.00%	12.03%	12.64%	13.49%	12.35%	10.76%	6.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RYLD and GDMA in my portfolio?

RYLD and GDMA 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 GDMA?

GDMA has higher volatility (6.18%) compared to RYLD (2.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RYLD dropped -41.53% vs GDMA's -16.66%.

Which ETF is better, RYLD or GDMA?

On 5-year performance, GDMA leads with 7.66% vs 2.69% for RYLD. On fees, RYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, RYLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RYLD or GDMA?

Over the 5-year period, GDMA has performed better with a 7.66% return vs 2.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RYLD or GDMA?

RYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for GDMA.

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

RYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.65%, compared with 2.51% for GDMA.

What is the main difference between RYLD and GDMA?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Gadsden. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for RYLD and 0.77% for GDMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GDMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 2.03), 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.