PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RYLG vs. DYLG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RYLG vs. DYLG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) and Global X Dow 30 Covered Call & Growth ETF (DYLG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RYLG achieves a 15.26% return, which is significantly higher than DYLG's 8.59% return.


RYLG

1D
-0.29%
1M
-0.34%
6M
11.11%
YTD
15.26%
1Y
30.41%
3Y*
11.53%
5Y*
10Y*
ALL TIME*
10.71%

DYLG

1D
0.64%
1M
0.75%
6M
7.29%
YTD
8.59%
1Y
20.19%
3Y*
13.16%
5Y*
10Y*
ALL TIME*
13.25%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$29.24K$30.29K$73.30K
$40.65K$31.83K$45.86K

RYLG vs. DYLG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
RYLG
Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF
15.26%9.39%10.57%0.71%
DYLG
Global X Dow 30 Covered Call & Growth ETF
8.59%12.50%14.46%4.05%

Correlation

The correlation between RYLG and DYLG is 0.73, 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.

0.73

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.76

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2023

0.75

The correlation between RYLG and DYLG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

RYLG vs. DYLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RYLG
DYLG

Healthcare

20.3%
13.2%

Financial Services

17.8%
26.7%

Technology

14.5%
16.1%

Industrials

14.1%
18.9%

Consumer Cyclical

9.2%
10.3%

Real Estate

6.8%

-

Energy

5.5%
1.9%

Basic Materials

4.4%
3.9%

Utilities

2.8%

-

Consumer Defensive

2.6%
3.9%

Communication Services

2.2%
5.2%

Healthcare

RYLG
20.3%
DYLG
13.2%

Financial Services

RYLG
17.8%
DYLG
26.7%

Technology

RYLG
14.5%
DYLG
16.1%

Industrials

RYLG
14.1%
DYLG
18.9%

Consumer Cyclical

RYLG
9.2%
DYLG
10.3%

Real Estate

RYLG
6.8%
DYLG

-

Energy

RYLG
5.5%
DYLG
1.9%

Basic Materials

RYLG
4.4%
DYLG
3.9%

Utilities

RYLG
2.8%
DYLG

-

Consumer Defensive

RYLG
2.6%
DYLG
3.9%

Communication Services

RYLG
2.2%
DYLG
5.2%

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

RYLG vs. DYLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RYLG
RYLG Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
RYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 8282
Sortino Ratio Rank
RYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
RYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
RYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
Martin Ratio Rank

DYLG
DYLG Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
DYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
DYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 8585
Omega Ratio Rank
DYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
DYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

RYLG vs. DYLG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) and Global X Dow 30 Covered Call & Growth ETF (DYLG). 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.


RYLGDYLGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.07

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.34

1.37

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.47

2.30

+1.17

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.51

9.40

+4.11

RYLG vs. DYLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RYLG Sharpe Ratio is 1.90, which is comparable to the DYLG Sharpe Ratio of 1.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RYLG and DYLG, 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...

Drawdowns

RYLG vs. DYLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RYLG drawdown since its inception was -22.37%, which is greater than DYLG's maximum drawdown of -13.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RYLG and DYLG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RYLGDYLGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-22.37%

-13.98%

-8.39%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.18%

-8.31%

+0.13%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.37%

-13.98%

-8.39%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.02%

-0.15%

-0.87%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.00%

-1.78%

-2.22%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.10%

2.03%

+0.07%

Volatility

RYLG vs. DYLG - Volatility Comparison

Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) and Global X Dow 30 Covered Call & Growth ETF (DYLG) have volatilities of 3.00% and 3.02%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RYLGDYLGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.00%

3.02%

-0.02%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.95%

7.91%

+3.04%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.95%

9.70%

+5.25%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.97%

11.35%

+5.62%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.97%

11.35%

+5.62%

RYLG vs. DYLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both RYLG and DYLG have an expense ratio of 0.35%.


Dividends

RYLG vs. DYLG - Dividend Comparison

RYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.35%, more than DYLG's 9.22% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022
DYLG
Global X Dow 30 Covered Call & Growth ETF
9.22%9.63%16.55%1.38%0.00%
RYLG
Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF
10.35%10.82%23.73%5.78%4.36%

Frequently Asked Questions


RYLG and DYLG have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

DYLG has higher volatility (3.02%) compared to RYLG (3.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RYLG dropped -22.37% vs DYLG's -13.98%.

On 3-year performance, DYLG leads with 13.16% vs 11.53% for RYLG. Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, DYLG has performed better with a 13.16% return vs 11.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RYLG and DYLG have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.

RYLG has the higher dividend yield at 10.35%, compared with 9.22% for DYLG.

RYLG tracks Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index, while DYLG tracks Cboe DJIA Half BuyWrite Index - Benchmark TR Gross.

DYLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.97 vs 1.90), 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 RYLG and DYLG

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