SMIG vs. IWMI

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

SMIG (Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF) and IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SMIG is a Small Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Bahl & Gaynor, while IWMI is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Neos. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, SMIG returned 16.68% vs 32.94% for IWMI. Their 0.76 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. SMIG charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for IWMI.

Performance

SMIG vs. IWMI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF (SMIG) 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 stocks are quite close, with SMIG having a 16.30% return and IWMI slightly lower at 15.60%.

SMIG

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 0.67%
• 6M: 11.37%
• YTD: 16.30%
• 1Y: 16.68%
• 3Y*: 12.67%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.88%

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
SMIG Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF	$7.13M	$7.85M	$8.52M

SMIG vs. IWMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
SMIG Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF	16.30%	0.78%	10.42%
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	15.60%	14.97%	6.58%

Correlation

The correlation between SMIG and IWMI is 0.69, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2024	0.76

The correlation between SMIG and IWMI has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

SMIG vs. IWMI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SMIG	IWMI
Financial Services	19.7%	15.5%
Industrials	19.1%	18.0%
Consumer Cyclical	14.2%	7.9%
Technology	10.8%	19.1%
Energy	10.4%	5.3%
Real Estate	9.7%	5.9%
Utilities	9.3%	2.8%
Healthcare	2.7%	16.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.2%	2.1%
Communication Services	2.2%	2.5%
Basic Materials	2.0%	4.7%

Return for Risk

SMIG vs. IWMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

SMIG

SMIG Risk / Return Rank: 52
SMIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
SMIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
SMIG Omega Ratio Rank: 52
SMIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
SMIG Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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.

SMIG vs. IWMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF (SMIG) 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.

	SMIG	IWMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.33	2.00	-0.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.02	2.82	-0.80
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.35	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.85	3.65	-1.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.83	15.05	-10.21

SMIG vs. IWMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SMIG Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is lower than the IWMI Sharpe Ratio of 2.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SMIG 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

SMIG vs. IWMI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SMIG drawdown since its inception was -19.65%, smaller than the maximum IWMI drawdown of -23.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMIG and IWMI.

Drawdown Indicators

	SMIG	IWMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.65%	-23.88%	+4.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.52%	-8.40%	-0.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.23%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.24%	-2.14%	+0.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.35%	-3.88%	-2.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.25%	2.04%	+1.21%

Volatility

SMIG vs. IWMI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF (SMIG) is 3.23%, while NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI) has a volatility of 3.53%. This indicates that SMIG 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

	SMIG	IWMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.23%	3.53%	-0.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.55%	11.67%	-3.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.84%	15.40%	-3.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.05%	17.66%	-1.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.05%	17.66%	-1.61%

SMIG vs. IWMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

SMIG has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than IWMI's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

SMIG vs. IWMI - Dividend Comparison

SMIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.66%, less than IWMI's 13.84% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	13.84%	14.05%	8.78%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SMIG Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF	1.66%	1.82%	1.75%	1.91%	2.00%	0.50%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SMIG and IWMI in my portfolio?

SMIG and IWMI have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SMIG or IWMI?

IWMI has higher volatility (3.53%) compared to SMIG (3.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMIG dropped -19.65% vs IWMI's -23.88%.

Which ETF is better, SMIG or IWMI?

On 1-year performance, IWMI leads with 32.94% vs 16.68% for SMIG. On fees, SMIG is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, SMIG has been the lower-risk option at 3.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SMIG or IWMI?

Over the 1-year period, IWMI has performed better with a 32.94% return vs 16.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SMIG or IWMI?

SMIG is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for IWMI.

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

IWMI has the higher dividend yield at 13.84%, compared with 1.66% for SMIG.

What is the main difference between SMIG and IWMI?

SMIG is categorized as Small Cap Value Equities, while IWMI is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: Bahl & Gaynor and Neos. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for SMIG and 0.68% for IWMI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.00 vs 1.33), 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.