TYLG vs. IVVW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

TYLG (Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF) and IVVW (iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF) are both Derivative Income funds - TYLG tracks the Cboe S&P Technology Select Sector Half BuyWrite Index - Benchmark TR Gross while IVVW tracks the Cboe S&P 500 Enhanced 1% OTM BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, TYLG returned 48.51% vs 20.07% for IVVW. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TYLG charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for IVVW.

Performance

TYLG vs. IVVW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF (TYLG) and iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF (IVVW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TYLG achieves a 24.03% return, which is significantly higher than IVVW's 4.84% return.

TYLG

• 1D: -0.43%
• 1M: 12.68%
• YTD: 24.03%
• 6M: 25.00%
• 1Y: 48.51%
• 3Y*: 24.91%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IVVW

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 1.90%
• YTD: 4.84%
• 6M: 6.58%
• 1Y: 20.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TYLG vs. IVVW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TYLG Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF	24.03%	16.84%	14.15%
IVVW iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF	4.84%	11.71%	12.90%

Correlation

The correlation between TYLG and IVVW is 0.80, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 18, 2024	0.82

The correlation between TYLG and IVVW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

TYLG vs. IVVW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TYLG	IVVW
Financial Services	54.4%	11.8%
Technology	47.9%	35.6%
Energy	0.1%	3.5%
Industrials	0.0%	8.3%
Basic Materials	-	1.8%
Communication Services	-	11.2%
Consumer Cyclical	-	10.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.9%
Healthcare	-	8.5%
Real Estate	-	1.9%
Utilities	-	2.4%

Return for Risk

TYLG vs. IVVW — Risk / Return Rank

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

TYLG

TYLG Risk / Return Rank: 88
TYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
TYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
TYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 87
TYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
TYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 88

IVVW

IVVW Risk / Return Rank: 82
IVVW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
IVVW Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
IVVW Omega Ratio Rank: 91
IVVW Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
IVVW Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

TYLG vs. IVVW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF (TYLG) and iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF (IVVW). 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.

	TYLG	IVVW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.14	2.73	+0.42
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.01	3.77	+0.24
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	1.61	-0.06
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.83	3.47	+1.36
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	19.36	19.13	+0.23
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TYLG vs. IVVW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TYLG Sharpe Ratio is 3.14, which is comparable to the IVVW Sharpe Ratio of 2.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TYLG and IVVW, 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

	TYLG	IVVW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.14	2.73	+0.42
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.47	1.07	+0.40

Drawdowns

TYLG vs. IVVW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TYLG drawdown since its inception was -24.01%, which is greater than IVVW's maximum drawdown of -16.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TYLG and IVVW.

Drawdown Indicators

	TYLG	IVVW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.01%	-16.79%	-7.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.09%	-5.81%	-4.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.01%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.43%	-0.09%	-0.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.73%	-1.75%	-0.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.51%	1.05%	+1.46%

Volatility

TYLG vs. IVVW - Volatility Comparison

Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF (TYLG) has a higher volatility of 4.45% compared to iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF (IVVW) at 1.13%. This indicates that TYLG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IVVW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TYLG	IVVW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.45%	1.13%	+3.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.70%	6.07%	+6.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.54%	7.40%	+8.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.17%	12.66%	+6.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.17%	12.66%	+6.51%

TYLG vs. IVVW - Expense Ratio Comparison

TYLG has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than IVVW's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

TYLG vs. IVVW - Dividend Comparison

TYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.47%, less than IVVW's 19.70% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
IVVW iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF	19.70%	18.55%	13.72%	0.00%	0.00%
TYLG Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF	7.47%	7.66%	7.24%	11.89%	0.51%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TYLG and IVVW in my portfolio?

TYLG and IVVW have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TYLG or IVVW?

TYLG has higher volatility (4.45%) compared to IVVW (1.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TYLG dropped -24.01% vs IVVW's -16.79%.

Which ETF is better, TYLG or IVVW?

On 1-year performance, TYLG leads with 48.51% vs 20.07% for IVVW. On fees, IVVW is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, IVVW has been the lower-risk option at 1.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TYLG or IVVW?

Over the 1-year period, TYLG has performed better with a 48.51% return vs 20.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TYLG or IVVW?

IVVW is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for TYLG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TYLG or IVVW?

IVVW has the higher dividend yield at 19.70%, compared with 7.47% for TYLG.

What is the main difference between TYLG and IVVW?

TYLG tracks Cboe S&P Technology Select Sector Half BuyWrite Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while IVVW tracks Cboe S&P 500 Enhanced 1% OTM BuyWrite Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for TYLG and 0.25% for IVVW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TYLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.14 vs 2.73), 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.