RYLG vs. IWMI

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) and NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI).

RYLG and IWMI 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. IWMI is an actively managed fund by Neos. It was launched on Jun 24, 2024.

Performance

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

RYLG vs. IWMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	1.14%	9.39%	9.69%
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	1.35%	14.97%	6.61%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RYLG achieves a 1.14% return, which is significantly lower than IWMI's 1.35% return.

RYLG

• 1D: 0.50%
• 1M: -4.66%
• YTD: 1.14%
• 6M: 4.30%
• 1Y: 18.92%
• 3Y*: 9.66%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWMI

• 1D: 0.42%
• 1M: -4.18%
• YTD: 1.35%
• 6M: 4.98%
• 1Y: 26.02%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RYLG vs. IWMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

RYLG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than IWMI's 0.68% expense ratio.

IWMI

NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF

RYLG

Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF

Return for Risk

RYLG vs. IWMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

RYLG

RYLG Risk / Return Rank: 54
RYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
RYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
RYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 52
RYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
RYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 60

IWMI

IWMI Risk / Return Rank: 76
IWMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
IWMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
IWMI Omega Ratio Rank: 71
IWMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
IWMI 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. IWMI - 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 NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI). 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	IWMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.97	1.37	-0.40
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.47	1.98	-0.51
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.27	-0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.43	2.09	-0.67
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	6.45	9.62	-3.17
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. IWMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RYLG Sharpe Ratio is 0.97, which is comparable to the IWMI Sharpe Ratio of 1.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RYLG and IWMI, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RYLG	IWMI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.97	1.37	-0.40
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.46	0.72	-0.26

Correlation

The correlation between RYLG and IWMI is 0.96, 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. IWMI - Dividend Comparison

RYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.30%, less than IWMI's 14.42% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	11.30%	10.82%	23.73%	5.78%	4.36%
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	14.42%	14.05%	8.78%	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

RYLG vs. IWMI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RYLG drawdown since its inception was -22.37%, smaller than the maximum IWMI drawdown of -23.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RYLG and IWMI.

Drawdown Indicators

	RYLG	IWMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.37%	-23.88%	+1.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.18%	-12.42%	-0.76%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.28%	-4.80%	-0.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.29%	-4.44%	+0.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.92%	2.70%	+0.22%

Volatility

RYLG vs. IWMI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) is 6.30%, while NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI) has a volatility of 6.95%. This indicates that RYLG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RYLG	IWMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.30%	6.95%	-0.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.99%	11.89%	+0.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.62%	19.09%	+0.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.35%	18.28%	-0.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.35%	18.28%	-0.93%