XBCI vs. IWMI
XBCI (NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF) and IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XBCI is a Cryptocurrency fund actively managed by Neos, while IWMI is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Neos. Both are actively managed. Their 0.56 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. XBCI charges 0.98%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for IWMI.
Performance
XBCI vs. IWMI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
XBCI
- 1D
- -3.22%
- 1M
- 3.82%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
IWMI
- 1D
- -0.46%
- 1M
- -1.52%
- 6M
- 11.05%
- YTD
- 15.60%
- 1Y
- 32.94%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 18.06%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $20.57M | $19.53M | $18.04M | |
| $3.48M | $3.42M | $5.46M |
XBCI vs. IWMI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
XBCI NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF | -22.94% |
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF | 10.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between XBCI and IWMI is 0.56, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2026 | 0.56 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
XBCI vs. IWMI — Risk / Return Rank
XBCI
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
IWMI
XBCI vs. IWMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF (XBCI) 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.
| XBCI | IWMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.35 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 3.65 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 15.05 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XBCI vs. IWMI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XBCI drawdown since its inception was -37.31%, which is greater than IWMI's maximum drawdown of -23.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBCI and IWMI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XBCI | IWMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -37.31% | -23.88% | -13.43% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -8.40% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -30.97% | -2.14% | -28.83% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -15.82% | -3.88% | -11.94% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 2.04% | — |
Volatility
XBCI vs. IWMI - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XBCI | IWMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 3.53% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 11.67% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 62.61% | 15.40% | +47.21% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 62.61% | 17.66% | +44.95% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 62.61% | 17.66% | +44.95% |
XBCI vs. IWMI - Expense Ratio Comparison
XBCI has a 0.98% expense ratio, which is higher than IWMI's 0.68% expense ratio.
Dividends
XBCI vs. IWMI - Dividend Comparison
XBCI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 26.04%, more than IWMI's 13.84% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF | 13.84% | 14.05% | 8.78% |
XBCI NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF | 26.04% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XBCI and IWMI have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IWMI is cheaper at 0.68% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IWMI is cheaper with a 0.68% expense ratio, compared with 0.98% for XBCI.
XBCI has the higher dividend yield at 26.04%, compared with 13.84% for IWMI.
XBCI is categorized as Cryptocurrency, while IWMI is Derivative Income. Their fees differ too: 0.98% for XBCI and 0.68% for IWMI.
Find the right allocation for XBCI and IWMI
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer