Screener
IWO vs RYLG
iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF vs Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF
Key differences
- IWO costs 0.11% less per year.
- IWO is significantly larger than RYLG — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- IWO is classified as equity, while RYLG is alternative — different risk/return profiles.
- IWO follows a index tracking strategy; RYLG uses option income.
- Over the last 3 years, IWO has delivered higher annualized returns.
- IWO has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| IWO | RYLG | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.24% | 0.35% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $13.9B | $8M |
| Since | 2000 | 2022 |
| Dividend yield | 0.42% | 7.42% |
| Asset class | equity | alternative |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | option income |
| CAGR 1Y | +43.1% | +33.5% |
| CAGR 3Y | +19.5% | +13.6% |
| CAGR 5Y | +6.5% | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.75 | 0.63 |
| Volatility 1Y | 21.41% | 14.96% |
| Max drawdown | -42.01% | -22.37% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to IWO and RYLG
Explore further