XRMI vs. RYLG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

XRMI (Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF) and RYLG (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF) are both Derivative Income funds from Global X - XRMI tracks the Cboe S&P 500 Risk Managed Income Index while RYLG tracks the Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, XRMI returned 6.75%/yr vs 11.53%/yr for RYLG. Their 0.60 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. XRMI charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RYLG.

Performance

XRMI vs. RYLG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF (XRMI) and Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XRMI achieves a 3.64% return, which is significantly lower than RYLG's 15.26% return.

XRMI

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: 1.10%
• 6M: 2.36%
• YTD: 3.64%
• 1Y: 10.84%
• 3Y*: 6.75%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 2.76%

RYLG

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: -0.34%
• 6M: 11.11%
• YTD: 15.26%
• 1Y: 30.41%
• 3Y*: 11.53%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.71%

*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)
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	$40.65K	$31.83K	$45.86K
XRMI Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF	$126.16K	$125.56K	$168.31K

XRMI vs. RYLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
XRMI Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF	3.64%	4.60%	15.18%	4.22%	-1.56%
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	15.26%	9.39%	10.57%	8.33%	-2.32%

Correlation

The correlation between XRMI and RYLG is 0.61, 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.	0.61
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 5, 2022	0.60

The correlation between XRMI and RYLG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

XRMI vs. RYLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XRMI	RYLG
Technology	38.5%	14.5%
Financial Services	11.5%	17.8%
Communication Services	9.9%	2.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	9.2%
Healthcare	8.9%	20.3%
Industrials	8.4%	14.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.5%	2.6%
Energy	3.0%	5.5%
Utilities	2.2%	2.8%
Real Estate	1.9%	6.8%
Basic Materials	1.6%	4.4%

Return for Risk

XRMI vs. RYLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

XRMI

XRMI Risk / Return Rank: 71
XRMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
XRMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
XRMI Omega Ratio Rank: 80
XRMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
XRMI Martin Ratio Rank: 66

RYLG

RYLG Risk / Return Rank: 84
RYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
RYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
RYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 80
RYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
RYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

XRMI vs. RYLG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF (XRMI) and Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG). 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.

	XRMI	RYLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.76	1.90	-0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.45	2.68	-0.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.34	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.98	3.47	-1.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.99	13.51	-5.52

XRMI vs. RYLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XRMI Sharpe Ratio is 1.76, which is comparable to the RYLG Sharpe Ratio of 1.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XRMI and RYLG, 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

XRMI vs. RYLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XRMI drawdown since its inception was -15.31%, smaller than the maximum RYLG drawdown of -22.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XRMI and RYLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	XRMI	RYLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.31%	-22.37%	+7.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.02%	-8.18%	+3.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.34%	-22.37%	+14.03%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.23%	-1.02%	+0.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.75%	-4.00%	-1.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.25%	2.10%	-0.85%

Volatility

XRMI vs. RYLG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF (XRMI) is 1.60%, while Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) has a volatility of 3.00%. This indicates that XRMI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RYLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XRMI	RYLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.60%	3.00%	-1.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.46%	10.95%	-6.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.68%	14.95%	-9.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.87%	16.97%	-10.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.87%	16.97%	-10.10%

XRMI vs. RYLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

XRMI has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than RYLG's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

XRMI vs. RYLG - Dividend Comparison

XRMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.52%, more than RYLG's 10.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	10.35%	10.82%	23.73%	5.78%	4.36%	0.00%
XRMI Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF	12.52%	12.35%	11.86%	12.62%	12.84%	2.93%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XRMI and RYLG in my portfolio?

XRMI and RYLG have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XRMI or RYLG?

RYLG has higher volatility (3.00%) compared to XRMI (1.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XRMI dropped -15.31% vs RYLG's -22.37%.

Which ETF is better, XRMI or RYLG?

On 3-year performance, RYLG leads with 11.53% vs 6.75% for XRMI. On fees, RYLG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, XRMI has been the lower-risk option at 1.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XRMI or RYLG?

Over the 3-year period, RYLG has performed better with a 11.53% return vs 6.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XRMI or RYLG?

RYLG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for XRMI.

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

XRMI has the higher dividend yield at 12.52%, compared with 10.35% for RYLG.

What is the main difference between XRMI and RYLG?

XRMI tracks Cboe S&P 500 Risk Managed Income Index, while RYLG tracks Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for XRMI and 0.35% for RYLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RYLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.90 vs 1.76), 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.