RYLG vs. IVVW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RYLG (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF) and IVVW (iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF) are both Derivative Income funds - RYLG tracks the Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index while IVVW tracks the Cboe S&P 500 Enhanced 1% OTM BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, RYLG returned 30.21% vs 17.28% for IVVW. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RYLG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for IVVW.

Performance

RYLG vs. IVVW - 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 iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF (IVVW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RYLG achieves a 14.56% return, which is significantly higher than IVVW's 4.01% return.

RYLG

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: 2.84%
• YTD: 14.56%
• 6M: 12.57%
• 1Y: 30.21%
• 3Y*: 13.83%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IVVW

• 1D: -1.24%
• 1M: 0.16%
• YTD: 4.01%
• 6M: 4.08%
• 1Y: 17.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RYLG vs. IVVW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	14.56%	9.39%	9.86%
IVVW iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF	4.01%	11.71%	12.76%

Correlation

The correlation between RYLG and IVVW is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 15, 2024	0.71

The correlation between RYLG and IVVW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

RYLG vs. IVVW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RYLG	IVVW
Technology	19.0%	38.4%
Industrials	18.0%	7.9%
Healthcare	16.3%	8.4%
Financial Services	15.5%	11.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.0%	10.0%
Real Estate	5.9%	1.8%
Energy	5.4%	3.2%
Basic Materials	4.7%	1.7%
Utilities	2.8%	2.1%
Communication Services	2.4%	10.8%
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	4.6%

Return for Risk

RYLG vs. IVVW — Risk / Return Rank

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

RYLG

RYLG Risk / Return Rank: 70
RYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
RYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
RYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 63
RYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
RYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 78

IVVW

IVVW Risk / Return Rank: 73
IVVW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
IVVW Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
IVVW Omega Ratio Rank: 83
IVVW Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
IVVW Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

RYLG vs. IVVW - 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 iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF (IVVW). 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.

	RYLG	IVVW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.02	2.16	-0.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.83	2.95	-0.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.47	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.71	2.99	+0.72
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.23	15.95	-1.72

RYLG vs. IVVW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RYLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.02, which is comparable to the IVVW Sharpe Ratio of 2.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RYLG and IVVW, 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

RYLG vs. IVVW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RYLG drawdown since its inception was -22.37%, which is greater than IVVW's maximum drawdown of -16.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RYLG and IVVW.

Drawdown Indicators

	RYLG	IVVW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.37%	-16.79%	-5.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.18%	-5.81%	-2.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.71%	-1.37%	+0.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.09%	-1.73%	-2.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.13%	1.09%	+1.04%

Volatility

RYLG vs. IVVW - Volatility Comparison

Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) has a higher volatility of 4.16% compared to iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF (IVVW) at 3.45%. This indicates that RYLG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IVVW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RYLG	IVVW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.16%	3.45%	+0.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.10%	6.91%	+4.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.05%	8.05%	+7.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.15%	12.69%	+4.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.15%	12.69%	+4.46%

RYLG vs. IVVW - Expense Ratio Comparison

RYLG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than IVVW's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

RYLG vs. IVVW - Dividend Comparison

RYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.29%, less than IVVW's 19.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
IVVW iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF	19.86%	18.55%	13.72%	0.00%	0.00%
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	10.29%	10.82%	23.73%	5.78%	4.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RYLG and IVVW in my portfolio?

RYLG and IVVW have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RYLG or IVVW?

RYLG has higher volatility (4.16%) compared to IVVW (3.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RYLG dropped -22.37% vs IVVW's -16.79%.

Which ETF is better, RYLG or IVVW?

On 1-year performance, RYLG leads with 30.21% vs 17.28% for IVVW. On fees, IVVW is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, IVVW has been the lower-risk option at 3.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RYLG or IVVW?

Over the 1-year period, RYLG has performed better with a 30.21% return vs 17.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RYLG or IVVW?

IVVW is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RYLG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RYLG or IVVW?

IVVW has the higher dividend yield at 19.86%, compared with 10.29% for RYLG.

What is the main difference between RYLG and IVVW?

RYLG tracks Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index, while IVVW tracks Cboe S&P 500 Enhanced 1% OTM BuyWrite Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RYLG and 0.25% for IVVW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IVVW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.16 vs 2.02), 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.