Data as of .
ACRT vs IWMI: which paid, and which earned it?
ACRT and IWMI both write options for income.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, ACRT and IWMI hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Only in ACRT | Only in IWMI |
|---|---|
| RU2K LADDERED AUTOCALL SWAP BANK OF AMERICA NA 100.00% | Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF 100.10% |
| RUT US 10/16/26 C3050 -0.03% | |
| RUT US 10/16/26 C3005 -0.07% |
Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Sep 18, 2026 and Sep 21, 2026.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Cash paid | Against the benchmark | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACRT | IWMI | ACRT | IWMI | ACRT | IWMI | |
| 3 months | not published | −1.7% | not published | 3.5% | not published | +1.9 pts |
| 6 months | not published | +16.0% | not published | 8.0% | not published | −1.9 pts |
| 1 year | not published | +18.4% | not published | 15.9% | not published | +1.1 pts |
| Since launch | −6.7% | +40.2% | 0.0% | 33.3% | −0.1 pts | −4.9 pts |
| ACRT ProShares Russell 2000 Autocallable Income ETF Option income on IWM | IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF Option income on IWM, paying monthly | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | ProShares | NEOS |
| Strategy | option income | option income |
| Benchmark | Russell 2000 (IWM) | Russell 2000 (IWM) |
| Pays | not established | monthly |
| Payout rate, annualized | not published | 14.6% |
| Expense ratio | 0.72% | 0.68% |
| Cash paid, 1 year | 0.0% (since launch on Aug 14, 2026) | 15.9% |
| Price change, 1 year | −6.7% | +1.3% |
| Total return, 1 year | −6.7% (since launch on Aug 14, 2026) | +18.4% |
| Benchmark return, 1 year | −6.6% | +17.2% |
| Ahead or behind | −0.1 pts | +1.1 pts |
| Return of capital, latest estimate | not published | 100% |
| Age | 35 days | 815 days |
| Net assets | $2m | $1.3bn |
ACRT in plain words
Over the period since launch on Aug 14, 2026 to Sep 18, 2026, ACRT paid 0.0% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 6.7%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned −6.7%. Russell 2000 (IWM) returned −6.6% over the same days, so a holder was about even.
IWMI in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, IWMI paid 15.9% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 1.3%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +18.4%. Russell 2000 (IWM) returned +17.2% over the same days, so a holder was ahead by 1.1 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 14.6%, paid monthly. NEOS estimates that 100% of the distribution paid Jun 18, 2026 was a return of capital (19a-1 notice, estimated, a tax characterization rather than a measure of erosion).
Questions people ask
- Which is cheaper, ACRT or IWMI?
- ACRT charges 0.72% a year and IWMI charges 0.68%, so IWMI is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Other comparisons
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, ACRT against IWMI, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/acrt-vs-iwmi Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.