Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
IWM vs RYLG: Differences, Returns & Fees
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, IWM returned +14.1% to RYLG's +12.4%, and IWM charges 0.19% to RYLG's 0.35%.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about IWM and RYLG
Net assets: $75.5bn on Oct 27, 2026 for iShares Russell 2000 ETF, and $7.7m on Oct 12, 2026 for Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF.
Pair scorecard
IWM costs 0.16 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 1.7 points; IWM is far larger, $77.7bn against $7.7m.
| Measure | IWM | RYLG |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +14.1% | +12.4% |
| Price change, 1 year | rose 13.0% | rose 1.2% |
| Latest payout, annualized | 5.7% | |
| Return of capital, issuer estimate | 100% of the Sep 24, 2026 payment | |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its high | 7.6%, high on Aug 14, 2026 | |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | Russell 2000 Index | Benchmark: Russell 2000, measured through IWM |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | 0.35% |
| Net assets, as of Oct 12, 2026 | $77.7bn | $7.7m |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 0% | |
| In the S&P 500, by weight | 0% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 3.3% | |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Jul 31, 2026 and Oct 27, 2026. Method
Risk and return
Oct 14, 2022 to Oct 23, 2026 · 210 weekly returnsEach against its own benchmark: IWM against VTWO, Oct 1, 2010 to Oct 23, 2026; RYLG against IWM, Oct 14, 2022 to Oct 23, 2026.
IWM returned more: +73.6% to +51.5%. RYLG swung less: 14.9% to 19.8%. RYLG fell less at its worst: −19.1% to −24.7%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | IWM | RYLG | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +73.6% | +51.5% | IWM | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +14.6% | +10.8% | IWM | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | +65.3% | −7.0% | IWM | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 19.8% | 14.9% | RYLG | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 13.2% | 10.6% | RYLG | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −24.7% | −19.1% | RYLG | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Upside capture | 101.0% | 60.4% | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. | |
| Downside capture | 100.5% | 81.8% | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. | |
| Beta | 1.01 | 0.73 | Not an edge | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 1.00 | 0.96 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | 0.56 | 0.46 | IWM | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | 0.84 | 0.64 | IWM | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Treynor | 0.106 | 0.093 | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. | |
| Calmar | 0.59 | 0.57 | IWM (slight) | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. |
| Against the benchmark | ||||
| Benchmark | VTWO | IWM | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | −0.1% a year | −1.3% a year | Not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | −0.36 | −0.85 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. |
| Alpha range | −0.6% to +0.4% | −4.3% to +1.7% | Includes zero | The 95% range for the yearly alpha. |
| Information ratio | −0.02 | −0.70 | Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error. | |
| Tracking error | 1.0% | 6.1% | Not an edge | How far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized. |
Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 210 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.
What they share
By the books each fund has filed, IWM and RYLG hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Jul 31, 2026 and Oct 27, 2026.
half
0% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Side by side
IWM and RYLG on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ. Cash paid: distributions over the window, as a share of the starting price.
IWM and RYLG do different jobs. What does each one do in a portfolio?
- What each follows. IWM follows Russell 2000 Index and RYLG is measured against Russell 2000 through IWM.
- Holdings in common. 0% of the weight is in the same securities (holdings dated Oct 27, 2026 and Jul 31, 2026).
- Cost. IWM charges 0.19% of assets a year and RYLG 0.35%, a gap of 0.16 points.
Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.
IWM
IWM tracks the Russell 2000. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +14.1% with distributions reinvested, against +14.3% for its benchmark, the Russell 2000 Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.19% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 27, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1,977 positions, with the top ten at 3.3%. It sat 7.6% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.
RYLG
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, RYLG paid 10.5% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 1.2%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +12.4%. Russell 2000 (IWM) returned +14.1% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 1.7 pts. At its price on Oct 28, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 5.7%, paid monthly. Global X estimates that 100% of the distribution paid Sep 24, 2026 was a return of capital (its 19a-1 notice). That is a tax label, not a measure of erosion.
Questions people ask
- Are IWM and RYLG in the same category?
- IWM is a stock ETF and RYLG is an option-income ETF, so they do different jobs. The table compares what both publish: return, cost and holdings.
- Which returned more over the last year, IWM or RYLG?
- In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWM returned +14.1% and RYLG +12.4%.
- Which is cheaper, IWM or RYLG?
- IWM is cheaper, by 0.16 percentage points a year. That is about $16 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Links are sources, not endorsements. A comparison is not a recommendation.
How this is computed
Overlap adds up the smaller of the two weights for each security both funds hold.
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown
ETFIQ, IWM against RYLG, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwm-vs-rylg
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). IWM against RYLG. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwm-vs-rylg
[IWM against RYLG (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwm-vs-rylg)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.