RYLG vs. IWMI

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

RYLG (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF) and IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. RYLG is passively managed, while IWMI is actively managed. Over the past year, RYLG returned 30.41% vs 32.94% for IWMI. Their 0.96 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. RYLG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for IWMI.

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.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with RYLG having a 15.26% return and IWMI slightly higher at 15.60%.

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%

IWMI

• 1D: -0.46%
• 1M: -1.52%
• 6M: 11.05%
• YTD: 15.60%
• 1Y: 32.94%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.06%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	$20.57M	$19.53M	$18.04M
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	$40.65K	$31.83K	$45.86K

RYLG vs. IWMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	15.26%	9.39%	9.48%
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	15.60%	14.97%	6.58%

Correlation

The correlation between RYLG and IWMI is 0.98 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2024	0.96

The correlation between RYLG and IWMI has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

RYLG vs. IWMI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RYLG	IWMI
Healthcare	20.3%	16.3%
Financial Services	17.8%	15.5%
Technology	14.5%	19.1%
Industrials	14.1%	18.0%
Consumer Cyclical	9.2%	7.9%
Real Estate	6.8%	5.9%
Energy	5.5%	5.3%
Basic Materials	4.4%	4.7%
Utilities	2.8%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	2.1%
Communication Services	2.2%	2.5%

Return for Risk

RYLG vs. IWMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

RYLG

RYLG Risk / Return Rank: 84
RYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
RYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
RYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 80
RYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
RYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 88

IWMI

IWMI Risk / Return Rank: 87
IWMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
IWMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
IWMI Omega Ratio Rank: 82
IWMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
IWMI Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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. 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.

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	IWMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.90	2.00	-0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.68	2.82	-0.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.35	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.47	3.65	-0.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.51	15.05	-1.54

RYLG vs. IWMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RYLG Sharpe Ratio is 1.90, which is comparable to the IWMI Sharpe Ratio of 2.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RYLG and IWMI, 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. 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	-8.18%	-8.40%	+0.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.02%	-2.14%	+1.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.00%	-3.88%	-0.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.10%	2.04%	+0.06%

Volatility

RYLG vs. IWMI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) is 3.00%, while NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI) has a volatility of 3.53%. 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	3.00%	3.53%	-0.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.95%	11.67%	-0.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.95%	15.40%	-0.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.97%	17.66%	-0.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.97%	17.66%	-0.69%

RYLG vs. IWMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

RYLG vs. IWMI - Dividend Comparison

RYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.35%, less than IWMI's 13.84% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	13.84%	14.05%	8.78%	0.00%	0.00%
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	10.35%	10.82%	23.73%	5.78%	4.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RYLG and IWMI in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, RYLG and IWMI 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 IWMI?

IWMI has higher volatility (3.53%) compared to RYLG (3.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RYLG dropped -22.37% vs IWMI's -23.88%.

Which ETF is better, RYLG or IWMI?

On 1-year performance, IWMI leads with 32.94% vs 30.41% for RYLG. On fees, RYLG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RYLG has been the lower-risk option at 3.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RYLG or IWMI?

Over the 1-year period, IWMI has performed better with a 32.94% return vs 30.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RYLG or IWMI?

RYLG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for IWMI.

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

IWMI has the higher dividend yield at 13.84%, compared with 10.35% for RYLG.

What is the main difference between RYLG and IWMI?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Neos. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RYLG and 0.68% for IWMI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.00 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.