XYLG vs. RYLG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

XYLG (Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF) and RYLG (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF) are both Derivative Income funds from Global X - XYLG tracks the Cboe S&P 500 Half BuyWrite Index while RYLG tracks the Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, XYLG returned 15.97%/yr vs 13.83%/yr for RYLG. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.35% expense ratio.

Performance

XYLG vs. RYLG - 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 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, XYLG achieves a 6.31% return, which is significantly lower than RYLG's 14.56% return.

XYLG

• 1D: -1.11%
• 1M: -0.48%
• YTD: 6.31%
• 6M: 5.87%
• 1Y: 19.67%
• 3Y*: 15.97%
• 5Y*: 10.07%
• 10Y*: —

RYLG

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: 2.84%
• YTD: 14.56%
• 6M: 12.57%
• 1Y: 30.21%
• 3Y*: 13.83%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XYLG vs. RYLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
XYLG Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF	6.31%	12.93%	22.31%	18.16%	1.81%
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	14.56%	9.39%	10.57%	8.33%	-2.32%

Correlation

The correlation between XYLG and RYLG is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 5, 2022	0.75

The correlation between XYLG and RYLG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

XYLG vs. RYLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XYLG	RYLG
Technology	39.2%	19.0%
Financial Services	11.6%	15.5%
Communication Services	10.2%	2.4%
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	8.0%
Healthcare	8.4%	16.3%
Industrials	7.9%	18.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	2.3%
Energy	3.1%	5.4%
Utilities	2.6%	2.8%
Real Estate	1.8%	5.9%
Basic Materials	1.8%	4.7%

Return for Risk

XYLG vs. RYLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

XYLG

XYLG Risk / Return Rank: 66
XYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
XYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
XYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 65
XYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
XYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 76

RYLG

RYLG Risk / Return Rank: 70
RYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
RYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
RYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 63
RYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
RYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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. RYLG - 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 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.

	XYLG	RYLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.00	2.02	-0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	2.83	-0.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.35	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.85	3.71	-0.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.98	14.23	-0.25

XYLG vs. RYLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XYLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.00, which is comparable to the RYLG Sharpe Ratio of 2.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XYLG 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

XYLG vs. RYLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XYLG drawdown since its inception was -21.30%, roughly equal to the maximum RYLG drawdown of -22.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XYLG and RYLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	XYLG	RYLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.30%	-22.37%	+1.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.93%	-8.18%	+1.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.42%	-22.37%	+4.95%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.30%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.84%	-0.71%	-1.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.07%	-4.09%	+0.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.41%	2.13%	-0.72%

Volatility

XYLG vs. RYLG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF (XYLG) is 3.50%, while Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) has a volatility of 4.16%. This indicates that XYLG 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

	XYLG	RYLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.50%	4.16%	-0.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.15%	11.10%	-2.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.95%	15.05%	-5.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.07%	17.15%	-3.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.86%	17.15%	-3.29%

XYLG vs. RYLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both XYLG and RYLG have an expense ratio of 0.35%.

Dividends

XYLG vs. RYLG - Dividend Comparison

XYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.25%, more than RYLG's 10.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	10.29%	10.82%	23.73%	5.78%	4.36%	0.00%	0.00%
XYLG Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF	13.25%	13.94%	23.65%	4.90%	6.43%	7.40%	1.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XYLG and RYLG in my portfolio?

XYLG and RYLG have a correlation of 0.75, 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 RYLG?

RYLG has higher volatility (4.16%) compared to XYLG (3.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XYLG dropped -21.30% vs RYLG's -22.37%.

Which ETF is better, XYLG or RYLG?

On 3-year performance, XYLG leads with 15.97% vs 13.83% for RYLG. Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. On volatility, XYLG has been the lower-risk option at 3.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XYLG or RYLG?

Over the 3-year period, XYLG has performed better with a 15.97% return vs 13.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XYLG or RYLG?

XYLG and RYLG have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.

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

XYLG has the higher dividend yield at 13.25%, compared with 10.29% for RYLG.

What is the main difference between XYLG and RYLG?

XYLG tracks Cboe S&P 500 Half BuyWrite Index, while RYLG tracks Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RYLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.02 vs 2.00), 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.