PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RYLD vs. SMDV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RYLD vs. SMDV - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RYLD achieves a 8.33% return, which is significantly lower than SMDV's 8.80% return.


RYLD

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

SMDV

1D
-1.58%
1M
-0.39%
YTD
8.80%
6M
7.57%
1Y
13.74%
3Y*
9.13%
5Y*
3.88%
10Y*
7.08%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RYLD vs. SMDV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
RYLD
Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF
8.33%5.65%10.13%0.27%-13.03%22.13%-0.44%8.92%
SMDV
ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF
8.80%0.26%7.03%8.99%-5.90%18.98%-4.74%7.79%

Correlation

The correlation between RYLD and SMDV is 0.61, 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

0.61

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.71

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.73

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 23, 2019

0.72

The correlation between RYLD and SMDV shifts across timeframes, from 0.61 (1 year) to 0.73 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RYLD vs. SMDV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RYLD
SMDV

Financial Services

104.9%
31.9%

Industrials

17.5%
22.2%

Technology

16.8%
3.2%

Healthcare

16.5%
1.8%

Consumer Cyclical

8.4%
4.1%

Real Estate

6.2%
7.4%

Energy

6.2%

-

Basic Materials

4.8%
7.8%

Utilities

2.9%
15.8%

Communication Services

2.5%
1.0%

Consumer Defensive

2.4%
4.8%

Financial Services

RYLD
104.9%
SMDV
31.9%

Industrials

RYLD
17.5%
SMDV
22.2%

Technology

RYLD
16.8%
SMDV
3.2%

Healthcare

RYLD
16.5%
SMDV
1.8%

Consumer Cyclical

RYLD
8.4%
SMDV
4.1%

Real Estate

RYLD
6.2%
SMDV
7.4%

Energy

RYLD
6.2%
SMDV

-

Basic Materials

RYLD
4.8%
SMDV
7.8%

Utilities

RYLD
2.9%
SMDV
15.8%

Communication Services

RYLD
2.5%
SMDV
1.0%

Consumer Defensive

RYLD
2.4%
SMDV
4.8%

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

RYLD vs. SMDV — Risk / Return Rank

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

RYLD
RYLD Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
RYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
RYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
RYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
RYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank

SMDV
SMDV Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
SMDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SMDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
SMDV Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
SMDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2929
Calmar Ratio Rank
SMDV Martin Ratio Rank: 2929
Martin Ratio Rank
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. SMDV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) and ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF (SMDV). 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.


RYLDSMDVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.15

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.43

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

1.16

+0.26

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.43

1.41

+2.02

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.86

4.25

+9.62

RYLD vs. SMDV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RYLD Sharpe Ratio is 2.03, which is higher than the SMDV Sharpe Ratio of 0.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RYLD and SMDV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


RYLDSMDVDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.03

0.87

+1.15

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.19

0.21

-0.02

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.34

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.32

0.38

-0.07

Drawdowns

RYLD vs. SMDV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RYLD drawdown since its inception was -41.53%, which is greater than SMDV's maximum drawdown of -34.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RYLD and SMDV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RYLDSMDVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-41.53%

-34.12%

-7.41%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.29%

-9.79%

+3.50%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.05%

-21.23%

+2.18%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.33%

-21.23%

-0.10%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.12%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.19%

-2.76%

+2.57%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.84%

-5.93%

-2.91%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.55%

3.25%

-1.70%

Volatility

RYLD vs. SMDV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (RYLD) is 2.02%, while ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF (SMDV) has a volatility of 4.41%. This indicates that RYLD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SMDV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RYLDSMDVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.02%

4.41%

-2.39%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.60%

10.55%

-2.95%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.67%

15.85%

-5.18%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.03%

18.69%

-4.66%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.20%

20.73%

-3.53%

RYLD vs. SMDV - Expense Ratio Comparison

RYLD has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than SMDV's 0.40% expense ratio.


Dividends

RYLD vs. SMDV - Dividend Comparison

RYLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.65%, more than SMDV's 2.42% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
RYLD
Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF
11.65%12.00%12.03%12.64%13.49%12.35%10.76%6.43%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
SMDV
ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF
2.42%2.67%2.68%2.69%2.51%2.02%2.13%2.03%1.97%1.84%1.35%1.81%

Frequently Asked Questions


RYLD and SMDV have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

SMDV has higher volatility (4.41%) compared to RYLD (2.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RYLD dropped -41.53% vs SMDV's -34.12%.

On 5-year performance, SMDV leads with 3.88% vs 2.69% for RYLD. On fees, SMDV is cheaper at 0.40% 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.

Over the 5-year period, SMDV has performed better with a 3.88% return vs 2.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

SMDV is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for RYLD.

RYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.65%, compared with 2.42% for SMDV.

RYLD is categorized as Hedge Fund, while SMDV is Small Cap Blend Equities. RYLD tracks CBOE Russell 2000 BuyWrite Index, while SMDV tracks Russell 2000 Dividend Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for RYLD and 0.40% for SMDV.

RYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 0.87), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RYLD and SMDV

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