Screener
IWL vs RYLG
iShares Russell Top 200 ETF vs Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF
Key differences
- IWL costs 0.20% less per year.
- IWL is significantly larger than RYLG — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- IWL is classified as equity, while RYLG is alternative — different risk/return profiles.
- IWL follows a index tracking strategy; RYLG uses option income.
- Over the last 3 years, IWL has delivered higher annualized returns.
- IWL has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| IWL | RYLG | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.15% | 0.35% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $2.1B | $8M |
| Since | 2009 | 2022 |
| Dividend yield | 0.86% | 7.42% |
| Asset class | equity | alternative |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | option income |
| CAGR 1Y | +30.1% | +32.0% |
| CAGR 3Y | +24.4% | +13.0% |
| CAGR 5Y | +14.7% | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | 1.28 | 0.60 |
| Volatility 1Y | 12.34% | 14.94% |
| Max drawdown | -32.71% | -22.37% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to IWL and RYLG
Explore further