XYLG vs. IVVW

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

XYLG (Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF) and IVVW (iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF) are both Derivative Income funds - XYLG tracks the Cboe S&P 500 Half BuyWrite Index while IVVW tracks the Cboe S&P 500 Enhanced 1% OTM BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, XYLG returned 24.07% vs 20.54% for IVVW. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XYLG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for IVVW.

Performance

XYLG vs. IVVW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF (XYLG) 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, XYLG achieves a 8.26% return, which is significantly higher than IVVW's 4.87% return.

XYLG

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 3.53%
• YTD: 8.26%
• 6M: 9.33%
• 1Y: 24.07%
• 3Y*: 16.78%
• 5Y*: 10.83%
• 10Y*: —

IVVW

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 1.80%
• YTD: 4.87%
• 6M: 6.74%
• 1Y: 20.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XYLG vs. IVVW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
XYLG Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF	8.26%	12.93%	15.12%
IVVW iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF	4.87%	11.71%	12.90%

Correlation

The correlation between XYLG and IVVW is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 18, 2024	0.86

The correlation between XYLG and IVVW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

XYLG vs. IVVW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XYLG	IVVW
Technology	38.7%	35.6%
Financial Services	11.4%	11.8%
Communication Services	10.8%	11.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	10.1%
Healthcare	8.3%	8.5%
Industrials	7.7%	8.3%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	4.9%
Energy	3.4%	3.5%
Utilities	2.7%	2.4%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.7%	1.8%

Return for Risk

XYLG vs. IVVW — Risk / Return Rank

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

XYLG

XYLG Risk / Return Rank: 78
XYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
XYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
XYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 80
XYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
XYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 85

IVVW

IVVW Risk / Return Rank: 84
IVVW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
IVVW Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
IVVW Omega Ratio Rank: 92
IVVW Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
IVVW Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

XYLG vs. IVVW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF (XYLG) 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.

	XYLG	IVVW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.55	2.79	-0.24
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.59	3.85	-0.26
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.63	-0.14
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.56	3.60	-0.04
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	18.01	19.89	-1.88
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XYLG vs. IVVW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XYLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.55, which is comparable to the IVVW Sharpe Ratio of 2.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XYLG 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

	XYLG	IVVW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.55	2.79	-0.24
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.78	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.99	1.07	-0.08

Drawdowns

XYLG vs. IVVW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XYLG drawdown since its inception was -21.30%, which is greater than IVVW's maximum drawdown of -16.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XYLG and IVVW.

Drawdown Indicators

	XYLG	IVVW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.30%	-16.79%	-4.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.93%	-5.81%	-1.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.42%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.30%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-0.07%	+0.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.10%	-1.76%	-2.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.37%	1.05%	+0.32%

Volatility

XYLG vs. IVVW - Volatility Comparison

Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF (XYLG) has a higher volatility of 2.55% compared to iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF (IVVW) at 1.14%. This indicates that XYLG'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

	XYLG	IVVW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.55%	1.14%	+1.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.58%	6.07%	+1.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.49%	7.40%	+2.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.00%	12.67%	+1.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.87%	12.67%	+1.20%

XYLG vs. IVVW - Expense Ratio Comparison

XYLG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than IVVW's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

XYLG vs. IVVW - Dividend Comparison

XYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.01%, less than IVVW's 21.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IVVW iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF	21.40%	18.55%	13.72%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XYLG Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF	13.01%	13.94%	23.65%	4.90%	6.43%	7.40%	1.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XYLG and IVVW in my portfolio?

XYLG and IVVW have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XYLG or IVVW?

XYLG has higher volatility (2.55%) compared to IVVW (1.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XYLG dropped -21.30% vs IVVW's -16.79%.

Which ETF is better, XYLG or IVVW?

On 1-year performance, XYLG leads with 24.07% vs 20.54% for IVVW. On fees, IVVW is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, IVVW has been the lower-risk option at 1.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XYLG or IVVW?

Over the 1-year period, XYLG has performed better with a 24.07% return vs 20.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XYLG or IVVW?

IVVW is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for XYLG.

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

IVVW has the higher dividend yield at 21.40%, compared with 13.01% for XYLG.

What is the main difference between XYLG and IVVW?

XYLG tracks Cboe S&P 500 Half BuyWrite Index, 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: 0.35% for XYLG and 0.25% for IVVW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IVVW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.79 vs 2.55), 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.