RYLG vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

RYLG (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RYLG is a Derivative Income fund tracking the Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RYLG returned 12.91%/yr vs 18.42%/yr for IWM. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. RYLG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

RYLG vs. IWM - 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 Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RYLG achieves a 13.55% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 18.69% return.

RYLG

• 1D: 0.87%
• 1M: 4.10%
• YTD: 13.55%
• 6M: 14.59%
• 1Y: 32.92%
• 3Y*: 12.91%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWM

• 1D: 0.93%
• 1M: 4.43%
• YTD: 18.69%
• 6M: 19.57%
• 1Y: 43.31%
• 3Y*: 18.42%
• 5Y*: 6.49%
• 10Y*: 11.08%

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

RYLG vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	13.55%	9.39%	10.57%	8.33%	-1.56%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	18.69%	12.66%	11.38%	16.83%	0.27%

Correlation

The correlation between RYLG and IWM is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.97
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 6, 2022	0.97

The correlation between RYLG and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

RYLG vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RYLG	IWM
Industrials	17.5%	17.1%
Technology	16.8%	19.5%
Healthcare	16.5%	15.8%
Financial Services	16.0%	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	8.4%	7.8%
Real Estate	6.2%	5.7%
Energy	6.2%	6.0%
Basic Materials	4.8%	4.5%
Utilities	2.9%	3.0%
Communication Services	2.5%	2.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	2.1%

Return for Risk

RYLG vs. IWM — 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: 78
RYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 78

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 69
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 60
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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. IWM - 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 Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). 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.

	RYLG	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.23	2.27	-0.05
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.11	3.12	-0.01
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.37	+0.02
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.04	3.97	+0.07
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	15.60	14.12	+1.49
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RYLG vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RYLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RYLG and IWM, 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

	RYLG	IWM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.23	2.27	-0.05
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.29	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.48	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.65	0.37	+0.28

Drawdowns

RYLG vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RYLG drawdown since its inception was -22.37%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RYLG and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	RYLG	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.37%	-59.05%	+36.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.18%	-11.03%	+2.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.37%	-27.50%	+5.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-31.91%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.13%	+0.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.14%	-10.77%	+6.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.12%	3.10%	-0.98%

Volatility

RYLG vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) is 3.81%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.56%. This indicates that RYLG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RYLG	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.81%	5.56%	-1.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.64%	13.52%	-2.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.84%	19.14%	-4.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.17%	22.52%	-5.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.17%	23.04%	-5.87%

RYLG vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

RYLG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

RYLG vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

RYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.24%, more than IWM's 0.87% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	0.87%	1.04%	1.15%	1.35%	1.48%	0.94%	1.04%	1.26%	1.40%	1.26%	1.38%	1.54%
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	10.24%	10.82%	23.73%	5.78%	4.36%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RYLG and IWM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.97, RYLG and IWM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, RYLG or IWM?

IWM has higher volatility (5.56%) compared to RYLG (3.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RYLG dropped -22.37% vs IWM's -59.05%.

Which ETF is better, RYLG or IWM?

On 3-year performance, IWM leads with 18.42% vs 12.91% for RYLG. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, RYLG has been the lower-risk option at 3.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RYLG or IWM?

Over the 3-year period, IWM has performed better with a 18.42% return vs 12.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RYLG or IWM?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RYLG.

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

RYLG has the higher dividend yield at 10.24%, compared with 0.87% for IWM.

What is the main difference between RYLG and IWM?

RYLG is categorized as Derivative Income, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. RYLG tracks Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RYLG and 0.19% for IWM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 2.23), 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.