Get the weekly note
ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

Data as of .

IWMW vs RYLG: which paid, and which earned it?

Over the year IWMW paid 19.0% of its price in cash against RYLG’s 11.0%, though RYLG returned more with it reinvested.

iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF and Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF.

19.0%IWMW cash paid, 1 year
11.0%RYLG cash paid, 1 year
+14.2%IWMW total return, 1 year
+16.2%RYLG total return, 1 year

ETFIQ Return Stability Score: RYLG scores higher

Was the payout funded by returns, or by your own capital?

IWMW 44.3RYLG 68.53.8, the lowest in this set96.8, the highest

A percentile among the 173 income ETFs writing on an index or proxy. It is a position in a set, not a rating, and neither end of it is a recommendation. All income ETFs ranked by it · How it is computed

IWMW3 pts behind IWM · 1 year to Sep 18, 2026
IWM+17.2%IWMW+14.2%19.0% of it arrived as cash3 pts behind IWMTotal return, distributions reinvestedIWM+17.2%IWMW+14.2%19.0% as cash3 pts behind IWM
RYLG1 pt behind IWM · 1 year to Sep 18, 2026
IWM+17.2%RYLG+16.2%11.0% of it arrived as cash1 pt behind IWMTotal return, distributions reinvestedIWM+17.2%RYLG+16.2%11.0% cash1 pt behind IWM

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWMW and RYLG hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Only in each
Only in IWMWOnly in RYLG
ISHARES RUSSELL 2000 ETF 100.60%GLOBAL X RUSSELL 2000 ETF 100.96%
USD CASH 0.38%CASH 0.55%
ETD LO USD BALANCE WITH R93535 0.00%MRUT US 10/16/26 C285 -0.06%
ETD USD BALANCE WITH R93535 0.00%OTHER PAYABLE & RECEIVABLES -0.48%
OCT26 RUT C @ 2915.000000 -0.98%RUT US 10/16/26 C2855 -0.97%

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.

Performance, window by window

IWMW and RYLG over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ.
WindowTotal returnCash paidAgainst the benchmark
IWMWRYLGIWMWRYLGIWMWRYLG
3 months+0.5%−1.1%3.6%1.7%+4.2 pts+2.5 pts
6 months+14.7%+15.1%9.7%4.2%−3.2 pts−2.8 pts
1 year+14.2%+16.2%19.0%11.0%−3.0 pts−1.0 pts
3 yearsnot published+44.9%not published38.2%not published−17.5 pts
Since launch+28.4%+46.2%42.5%43.6%−16.2 pts−24.6 pts
Open the live comparison on ETFIQ
IWMW and RYLG on the same fields, as of Sep 18, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWMW
iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF
Covered call on IWM, paying monthly
RYLG
Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF
Covered call on IWM, paying monthly
IssueriSharesGlobal X
Strategycovered callcovered call
BenchmarkRussell 2000 (IWM)Russell 2000 (IWM)
Paysmonthlymonthly
Payout rate, annualized7.4%6.5%
Expense ratio0.39%0.35%
Cash paid, 1 year19.0%11.0%
Price change, 1 year−6.2%+4.2%
Total return, 1 year+14.2%+16.2%
Benchmark return, 1 year+17.2%+17.2%
Ahead or behind−3.0 pts−1.0 pts
Return of capital, latest estimatenot published100%
Age917 days1444 days
Net assets$58m$8m

IWMW in plain words

Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, IWMW paid 19.0% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 6.2%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +14.2%. Russell 2000 (IWM) returned +17.2% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 3.0 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 7.4%, paid monthly.

RYLG in plain words

Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, RYLG paid 11.0% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 4.2%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +16.2%. Russell 2000 (IWM) returned +17.2% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 1.0 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 6.5%, paid monthly. Global X estimates that 100% of the distribution paid Aug 27, 2026 was a return of capital (19a-1 notice, estimated, a tax characterization rather than a measure of erosion).

Questions people ask

Which paid more, IWMW or RYLG?
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, IWMW paid 19.0% of its starting price in cash and RYLG paid 11.0%, so IWMW paid more. Cash paid is not the same as money made: the price change matters too.
Which returned more once distributions are counted, IWMW or RYLG?
With every distribution reinvested, IWMW returned +14.2% and RYLG returned +16.2% over the year to Sep 18, 2026, so RYLG returned more.
Which is cheaper, IWMW or RYLG?
IWMW charges 0.39% a year and RYLG charges 0.35%, so RYLG 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.

IWMW against RYLG, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 18, 2026. Every figure is calculated from a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, IWMW against RYLG, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/iwmw-vs-rylg Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

How every figure is computed · Standards and sources