RYLG vs. IWM
Compare and contrast key facts about Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM).
RYLG and IWM are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. RYLG is a passively managed fund by Global X that tracks the performance of the Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index. It was launched on Oct 4, 2022. IWM is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Russell 2000 Index. It was launched on May 22, 2000. Both RYLG and IWM are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
RYLG vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
RYLG vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF | 0.64% | 9.39% | 10.57% | 8.33% | -1.56% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 0.93% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | 0.27% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RYLG achieves a 0.64% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 0.93% return.
RYLG
- 1D
- 2.64%
- 1M
- -4.29%
- YTD
- 0.64%
- 6M
- 4.08%
- 1Y
- 18.22%
- 3Y*
- 9.48%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWM
- 1D
- 3.50%
- 1M
- -4.96%
- YTD
- 0.93%
- 6M
- 3.02%
- 1Y
- 25.66%
- 3Y*
- 12.94%
- 5Y*
- 3.34%
- 10Y*
- 9.76%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
RYLG vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
RYLG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
RYLG vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
RYLG
IWM
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 ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.93 | 1.11 | -0.18 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.43 | 1.66 | -0.23 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.20 | 1.21 | -0.01 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.35 | 1.82 | -0.47 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.15 | 6.76 | -0.61 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| RYLG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.93 | 1.11 | -0.18 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.15 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.43 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.45 | 0.34 | +0.11 |
Correlation
The correlation between RYLG and IWM is 0.97, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
RYLG vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
RYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.35%, more than IWM's 1.02% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF | 11.35% | 10.82% | 23.73% | 5.78% | 4.36% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 1.02% | 1.04% | 1.15% | 1.35% | 1.48% | 0.94% | 1.04% | 1.26% | 1.40% | 1.26% | 1.38% | 1.54% |
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.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| RYLG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.37% | -59.05% | +36.68% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.18% | -13.74% | +0.56% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -31.91% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -41.13% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.75% | -7.91% | +2.16% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.29% | -10.83% | +6.54% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.90% | 3.70% | -0.80% |
Volatility
RYLG vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) is 6.39%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 7.47%. 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.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| RYLG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.39% | 7.47% | -1.08% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.98% | 14.47% | -2.49% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.62% | 23.18% | -3.56% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.36% | 22.55% | -5.19% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.36% | 22.99% | -5.63% |