RYLG vs. IWMW

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

RYLG (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF) and IWMW (iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF) are both Derivative Income funds - RYLG tracks the Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index while IWMW tracks the Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, RYLG returned 32.92% vs 26.41% for IWMW. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RYLG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IWMW.

Performance

RYLG vs. IWMW - 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 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW). 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 higher than IWMW's 8.86% return.

RYLG

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

IWMW

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: 3.05%
• YTD: 8.86%
• 6M: 9.65%
• 1Y: 26.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RYLG vs. IWMW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	13.55%	9.39%	9.49%
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	8.86%	7.82%	6.09%

Correlation

The correlation between RYLG and IWMW is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 18, 2024	0.94

The correlation between RYLG and IWMW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

RYLG vs. IWMW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RYLG	IWMW
Industrials	17.5%	17.6%
Technology	16.8%	19.2%
Healthcare	16.5%	16.6%
Financial Services	16.0%	16.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.4%	7.8%
Real Estate	6.2%	5.8%
Energy	6.2%	6.4%
Basic Materials	4.8%	4.8%
Utilities	2.9%	3.1%
Communication Services	2.5%	2.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	2.2%

Return for Risk

RYLG vs. IWMW — 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

IWMW

IWMW Risk / Return Rank: 68
IWMW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
IWMW Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
IWMW Omega Ratio Rank: 71
IWMW Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
IWMW Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. IWMW - 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 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW). 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	IWMW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.23	2.15	+0.07
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.11	2.92	+0.19
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.43	-0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.04	3.80	+0.24
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	15.60	13.17	+2.44
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. IWMW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RYLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is comparable to the IWMW Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RYLG and IWMW, 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	IWMW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.23	2.15	+0.07
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.65	0.65	-0.01

Drawdowns

RYLG vs. IWMW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RYLG drawdown since its inception was -22.37%, roughly equal to the maximum IWMW drawdown of -21.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RYLG and IWMW.

Drawdown Indicators

	RYLG	IWMW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.37%	-21.82%	-0.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.18%	-6.94%	-1.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.14%	-3.85%	-0.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.12%	2.00%	+0.12%

Volatility

RYLG vs. IWMW - Volatility Comparison

Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) has a higher volatility of 3.81% compared to iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) at 3.03%. This indicates that RYLG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWMW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RYLG	IWMW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.81%	3.03%	+0.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.64%	8.74%	+1.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.84%	12.31%	+2.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.17%	16.13%	+1.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.17%	16.13%	+1.04%

RYLG vs. IWMW - Expense Ratio Comparison

RYLG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than IWMW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

RYLG vs. IWMW - Dividend Comparison

RYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.24%, less than IWMW's 24.00% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	22.32%	20.98%	17.73%	0.00%	0.00%
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	10.24%	10.82%	23.73%	5.78%	4.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RYLG and IWMW in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, RYLG and IWMW 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 IWMW?

RYLG has higher volatility (3.81%) compared to IWMW (3.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RYLG dropped -22.37% vs IWMW's -21.82%.

Which ETF is better, RYLG or IWMW?

On 1-year performance, RYLG leads with 32.92% vs 26.41% for IWMW. On fees, RYLG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, IWMW has been the lower-risk option at 3.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RYLG or IWMW?

Over the 1-year period, RYLG has performed better with a 32.92% return vs 26.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RYLG or IWMW?

RYLG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for IWMW.

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

IWMW has the higher dividend yield at 24.00%, compared with 10.24% for RYLG.

What is the main difference between RYLG and IWMW?

RYLG tracks Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index, while IWMW tracks Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RYLG and 0.39% for IWMW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RYLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 2.15), 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.