Screener
RYLG vs IWP
Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF vs iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF
Key differences
- IWP costs 0.12% less per year.
- IWP is significantly larger than RYLG — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- RYLG is classified as alternative, while IWP is equity — different risk/return profiles.
- RYLG follows a option income strategy; IWP uses index tracking.
- Over the last 3 years, IWP has delivered higher annualized returns.
- IWP has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| RYLG | IWP | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.35% | 0.23% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $8M | $19.6B |
| Since | 2022 | 2001 |
| Dividend yield | 7.42% | 0.34% |
| Asset class | alternative | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | option income | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +33.5% | +8.5% |
| CAGR 3Y | +13.6% | +16.2% |
| CAGR 5Y | N/A | +7.2% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.63 | 0.69 |
| Volatility 1Y | 14.96% | 16.56% |
| Max drawdown | -22.37% | -38.62% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to RYLG and IWP
Explore further