SMIZ vs. IWMI

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SMIZ (Zacks Small/Mid Cap ETF) and IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SMIZ is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Zacks, while IWMI is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Neos. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, SMIZ returned 30.97% vs 34.38% for IWMI. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SMIZ charges 0.56%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for IWMI.

Performance

SMIZ vs. IWMI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Zacks Small/Mid Cap ETF (SMIZ) and NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SMIZ achieves a 15.79% return, which is significantly higher than IWMI's 13.36% return.

SMIZ

• 1D: -0.83%
• 1M: 3.15%
• YTD: 15.79%
• 6M: 14.09%
• 1Y: 30.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWMI

• 1D: -1.02%
• 1M: 3.18%
• YTD: 13.36%
• 6M: 13.24%
• 1Y: 34.38%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SMIZ vs. IWMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
SMIZ Zacks Small/Mid Cap ETF	15.79%	12.16%	11.08%
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	13.36%	14.97%	6.61%

Correlation

The correlation between SMIZ and IWMI 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 Jun 26, 2024	0.92

The correlation between SMIZ and IWMI has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

SMIZ vs. IWMI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SMIZ	IWMI
Technology	24.7%	15.1%
Industrials	21.6%	16.6%
Financial Services	21.0%	16.0%
Healthcare	8.1%	17.9%
Consumer Cyclical	6.1%	8.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.2%	2.6%
Real Estate	3.5%	6.3%
Basic Materials	3.1%	5.0%
Energy	2.9%	6.5%
Utilities	2.6%	3.1%
Communication Services	2.4%	2.4%

Return for Risk

SMIZ vs. IWMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

SMIZ

SMIZ Risk / Return Rank: 58
SMIZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
SMIZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
SMIZ Omega Ratio Rank: 53
SMIZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
SMIZ Martin Ratio Rank: 65

IWMI

IWMI Risk / Return Rank: 73
IWMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
IWMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
IWMI Omega Ratio Rank: 66
IWMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
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.

SMIZ vs. IWMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Zacks Small/Mid Cap ETF (SMIZ) 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.

	SMIZ	IWMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.86	2.33	-0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.63	3.25	-0.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.41	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.96	4.11	-1.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.82	17.09	-5.27
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SMIZ vs. IWMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SMIZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.86, which is comparable to the IWMI Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SMIZ 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	SMIZ	IWMI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.86	2.33	-0.47
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.29	1.04	+0.25

Drawdowns

SMIZ vs. IWMI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SMIZ drawdown since its inception was -25.04%, roughly equal to the maximum IWMI drawdown of -23.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMIZ and IWMI.

Drawdown Indicators

	SMIZ	IWMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.04%	-23.88%	-1.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.51%	-8.40%	-2.11%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.83%	-1.02%	+0.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.97%	-4.12%	+0.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.63%	2.02%	+0.61%

Volatility

SMIZ vs. IWMI - Volatility Comparison

Zacks Small/Mid Cap ETF (SMIZ) has a higher volatility of 4.59% compared to NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI) at 4.31%. This indicates that SMIZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SMIZ	IWMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.59%	4.31%	+0.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.79%	10.74%	+2.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.76%	14.84%	+1.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.89%	17.89%	+1.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.89%	17.89%	+1.00%

SMIZ vs. IWMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

SMIZ has a 0.56% expense ratio, which is lower than IWMI's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

SMIZ vs. IWMI - Dividend Comparison

SMIZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, less than IWMI's 13.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	13.52%	14.05%	8.78%	0.00%
SMIZ Zacks Small/Mid Cap ETF	0.53%	0.62%	1.57%	0.07%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SMIZ and IWMI in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, SMIZ 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, SMIZ or IWMI?

SMIZ has higher volatility (4.59%) compared to IWMI (4.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMIZ dropped -25.04% vs IWMI's -23.88%.

Which ETF is better, SMIZ or IWMI?

On 1-year performance, IWMI leads with 34.38% vs 30.97% for SMIZ. On fees, SMIZ is cheaper at 0.56% per year. On volatility, IWMI has been the lower-risk option at 4.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SMIZ or IWMI?

Over the 1-year period, IWMI has performed better with a 34.38% return vs 30.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SMIZ or IWMI?

SMIZ is cheaper with a 0.56% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for IWMI.

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

IWMI has the higher dividend yield at 13.52%, compared with 0.53% for SMIZ.

What is the main difference between SMIZ and IWMI?

SMIZ is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while IWMI is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: Zacks and Neos. Their fees differ too: 0.56% for SMIZ and 0.68% for IWMI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs 1.86), 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.