ETF Comparison

ITWO vs IWMI: Which Is the Better Pick in 2026?

A head-to-head comparison of ProShares Russell 2000 High Income ETF and NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF covering yield, cost, risk, and income potential.

Data updated August 19, 2026

Best for

ITWOInvestors who want broad equity exposure.
IWMIInvestors who want to maximize current income — roughly 14.39%, generated by selling options premium.

Jump to the side-by-side numbers

Visual comparison

Key metrics

Projected income on $10K

Projections assume the current yield and share price remain constant. Actual results will vary.

Total returns

ITWO has outpaced IWMI over the trailing twelve months, posting a 34.42% total return against 28.74%. Measured from Sep 2024 — when the younger fund began trading — ITWO has compounded at 21.04% a year versus 18.95% for IWMI. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested.

Total return and risk statistics by fund. Each row is one fund; each column is one period or statistic.
Symbol	YTD	1Y	Since Sep 2024	Volatility	Sharpe	Sortino	Max drawdown
ITWO	22.60%	34.42%	21.04%	18.6%	1.35	2.00	-9.8%
IWMI	16.79%	28.74%	18.95%	15.1%	1.38	2.07	-8.4%

Total return with all distributions reinvested on the ex-dividend date, split-adjusted, as of August 19, 2026. YTD and 1Y are cumulative; longer windows are annualized. “Since Sep 2024” measures every fund from September 5, 2024 — the youngest fund's first trading day — so all funds share one comparison window. Volatility is the annualized standard deviation of daily total returns over the past year. Sharpe and Sortino divide the annualized return in excess of the risk-free rate by, respectively, that volatility and the downside deviation (both over the past year) — higher is better. Max drawdown is the largest peak-to-trough total-return decline over the same window — shallower is better.

Side-by-side snapshot

Side-by-side snapshot. Each row is one metric; each column is one fund.
Metric	ITWO	IWMI
Full name	ProShares Russell 2000 High Income ETF	NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF
Issuer	ProShares	NEOS
Last Close	$46.37 as of August 19, 2026	$53.15 as of August 19, 2026
Distribution yield	6.08%	14.39%
Distribution Safety Score™	79	84
Expense ratio	0.55%	0.68%
AUM	$203M	$1.20B
Distribution frequency	Monthly	Monthly
Underlying index	Russell 2000 Index	Russell 2000 Index
Objective	Covered Call Income	IWMI is built to crank out high monthly income while staying tax-efficient. The fund invests in Russell 2000 stocks and layers on a data-driven call option strategy. That combo gives it steady cash flow and a chance to grab some upside if the Russell 2000 rallies. For tax perks, it uses section 1256 index options (with the sweet 60/40 long-term vs short-term split) and fund managers may also harvest losses to soften the tax bite. Quick summary: * Goal: High monthly income + equity growth potential * Method: Russell 2000 holdings + call option overlay * Upside: Participates when RUT rises * Tax angle: 60/40 capital gains treatment + loss harvesting
Asset class	Equity	Equity
Inception date	01/23/2025	06/24/2024
Beta	1.2758	1.0582
Last dividend	$0.2348	$0.6373
Ex-dividend date	08/03/2026	08/19/2026

Bottom lineChoose ITWO if you want broad equity exposure. Choose IWMI if you want to maximize current income — roughly 14.39%, generated by selling options premium. There's no free lunch: IWMI's payout comes from selling options, which caps upside and can erode the share price over time, while ITWO keeps full price exposure.

How the risk works

Read this before the income numbers below: the strategy mechanics on this page shape what those payouts can cost you.

Capped upside and premium dependence. IWMI generates income by selling options, which trades away part of a strong rally in exchange for premium. Distributions can include return of capital, and a payout the underlying assets cannot sustain shows up as NAV erosion over time — the big yield number is not free.

Learn the mechanics: Return of capital, explained · NAV erosion, explained

Model this comparison:

Compare in my portfolio Forecast income Save to watchlist

Income calculator

See how much monthly income a hypothetical investment would generate in each ETF at current yields.

ProShares

ETFs169

Total AUM$130B

ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.

ProShares is known for offering leveraged and inverse ETFs that provide amplified exposure to market movements, along with thematic and income-focused strategies. Their fund lineup spans digital assets (including Bitcoin and Ethereum exposure through BITO and EETH), dividend strategies like the Dividend Aristocrats fund (NOBL), covered call income strategies, and leveraged/inverse products that track major indices with 2x or 3x daily multipliers (such as SSO and TQQQ for tech-heavy portfolios). With 23 ETFs across specialized families including leveraged products, money market funds, and sector-specific offerings, ProShares serves investors seeking both traditional income and alternative exposure strategies.

See our curated list of related YouTube videos on ITWO.

See all ProShares ETFs

NEOS

ETFs19

Total AUM$32.2B

ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.

NEOS is known for developing specialized income-focused ETFs that employ strategies like covered calls, hedging, and enhanced yields across various asset classes. The firm manages 19 funds organized into nine distinct families, including offerings in equity high income, fixed income enhancement, digital assets, and alternative strategies, with popular tickers like SPYI (S&P 500 covered call), QQQI (Nasdaq-100 covered call), and QQQH (Nasdaq-100 hedged equity income). NEOS distinguishes itself in the ETF landscape through its emphasis on income generation and downside protection strategies rather than traditional growth approaches.

See our curated list of related YouTube videos on IWMI.

See all NEOS ETFs

Want to go deeper?

Add these ETFs to a sample portfolio and forecast your dividend income over 5+ years — free to start, no credit card.

Compare in my portfolio Forecast income Save to watchlist

Quick verdict

ITWO (ProShares Russell 2000 High Income ETF) and IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF) are both monthly-pay dividend ETFs, but they take different approaches.

IWMI offers the higher yield at 14.39% vs 6.08% for ITWO. A higher yield means more current income per dollar invested, though it may come with different risk characteristics.

ITWO is cheaper with an expense ratio of 0.55% compared to 0.68%.

IWMI is the larger fund by assets ($1.20B), which generally means tighter spreads and better liquidity.

Who should choose each?

Choose ITWO

ProShares Russell 2000 High Income ETF

Want broad equity exposure.
Want to keep costs low — a 0.55% expense ratio vs 0.68% for IWMI.

Choose IWMI

NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF

Want to maximize current income — IWMI distributes roughly 14.39% from selling options premium, vs 6.08% for ITWO.
Are comfortable with an options-income strategy — a large payout in exchange for capped upside.
Prefer lower volatility — a beta of 1.1 vs 1.3 for ITWO.

Not sure? Use the income calculator and snapshot above to weigh these trade-offs against your own goals.

Still deciding? Track ITWO & IWMI for free

Create a free Dividend Vision account to keep them on a watchlist, get notified when they declare dividends, and see how much income they would add to your portfolio.

Add to my watchlist See what a free account includes

Deep dive

Yield & income

On a $10,000 investment, ITWO would generate roughly $50.67/month, while IWMI would produce $119.92/month, at current distribution rates. Both pay monthly distributions.

ITWO yield6.08%

IWMI yield14.39%

Monthly diff on $10K$69.25

Cost & efficiency

Over 10 years on $10,000, ITWO would cost approximately $550 in fees vs $680 for IWMI (simplified, not compounded). The $130.00 difference may be offset by yield or performance.

ITWO ER0.55%

IWMI ER0.68%

Strategy & risk

Both ITWO and IWMI wrap Russell 2000 Index with options-based income overlays (covered call income and options). The practical differences are yield target, fee structure, and issuer track record — not the underlying mechanic. Beta is 1.2758 for ITWO and 1.0582 for IWMI, making IWMI the less volatile of the two by this measure.

ITWO beta1.2758

IWMI beta1.0582

Fund details

ITWO is managed by ProShares (launched 01/23/2025) with $203M in assets. IWMI is managed by NEOS (launched 06/24/2024) with $1.20B in assets.

ITWO AUM$203M

IWMI AUM$1.20B

Ready to act?

Open in Comparator Model in portfolio See pricing

Frequently asked questions

What is the current distribution yield for ITWO and IWMI?

ITWO currently distributes 6.08% and IWMI 14.39%, based on fund data updated August 2026. Distribution yield moves with both the payout and the share price, so check the as-of date before relying on either figure.

Is ITWO or IWMI better for dividend income?

It depends on your goals. IWMI currently offers the higher distribution yield, which means more income per dollar invested. However, a lower-yield fund may offer better total return or lower volatility. Consider your time horizon and risk tolerance.

What is the difference between ITWO and IWMI?

Both ITWO (ProShares Russell 2000 High Income ETF) and IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF) track Russell 2000 Index with options-based income strategies — the labels "covered call income" and "options" describe closely related mechanics (covered calls are a specific type of options strategy). The real differences show up in yield target (6.08% vs 14.39%), expense ratio (0.55% vs 0.68%), and issuer (ProShares vs NEOS).

Can I hold both ITWO and IWMI?

You can, but expect significant overlap. Both funds use options-based income strategies on Russell 2000 Index, so holding them together gives you two wrappers around effectively the same exposure — not true diversification. Weigh issuer, fee, and yield differences rather than treating them as complementary.

Is ITWO or IWMI safer?

By Dividend Vision's Distribution Safety Score — a rules-based 0–100 estimate of how resilient a distribution looks, where higher is safer — IWMI scores 84, ITWO scores 79, so IWMI's payout currently looks the more resilient of the two. IWMI has also shown lower price volatility (beta 1.06 vs 1.28 for ITWO). No score makes an investment risk-free — treat this as a screening signal, not a guarantee, and the leverage, options-income, or crypto caveats flagged on this page apply regardless of score.

Which has lower fees, ITWO or IWMI?

ITWO has an expense ratio of 0.55% while IWMI charges 0.68%. Lower fees mean more of your investment returns stay in your pocket over time.

How much income does $10,000 in ITWO vs IWMI generate?

At current rates, $10,000 in ITWO would generate roughly $50.67 per month ($608.00 annually). The same in IWMI would produce about $119.92 per month ($1,439.00 annually).

Which has performed better historically, ITWO or IWMI?

More comparisons to explore

People also compare IWMI with

Popular comparisons

ITWO vs IWMI — at a glance

Generated August 15, 2026.

Figures quoted in this analysis are from its generation date and may lag the live snapshot table above, which always shows the latest data.

Overview

ITWO and IWMI are both small-cap equity ETFs that layer covered call strategies onto Russell 2000 holdings to generate monthly income. The critical difference is yield: IWMI targets 13.98% distributions while ITWO aims for 5.98%, and IWMI uses section 1256 index options for potential tax efficiency, whereas ITWO employs a standard covered call overlay. ITWO launched in January 2025; IWMI has been operating since mid-2024.

How they differ

The most obvious distinction is distribution yield. IWMI's 13.98% rate is more than double ITWO's 5.98%, signaling an aggressive income strategy that will test whether option premium can sustain such payout levels without eroding principal. Second, IWMI's $1.16B in AUM dwarfs ITWO's $200M, and IWMI explicitly flags section 1256 index options plus loss-harvesting tactics as its tax-efficiency angle—ITWO does not. Third, IWMI carries a beta of 1.0582 versus ITWO's 1.2758, suggesting IWMI tracks the Russell 2000 more closely while ITWO has amplified downside risk in a market selloff, likely because its lower yield requires less call premium (and thus less cap on upside).

Who each is best for

ITWO: Fits investors who want steady small-cap covered call income without the tax-efficiency overhead, accept modest leverage to downside, and prefer a moderate yield that reduces the risk of distribution-rate sustainability over long periods.

IWMI: Fits investors who prioritize maximum current income from small-cap exposure, understand that high distributions may include return of capital, and have a longer time horizon to weather the NAV volatility that comes with aggressive call overlay strategies and potential tax-loss harvesting cycles.

Key risks to know

NAV erosion at high distribution yields. IWMI's 13.98% payout rate significantly exceeds typical Russell 2000 dividend yields, meaning distributions will likely rely on option premium and possible return of capital. Over time, this can compress NAV, particularly in choppy or declining markets when call premium dries up.

Amplified downside beta. ITWO's 1.2758 beta means losses in small-cap downturns are magnified; in a sharp Russell 2000 decline, ITWO could fall harder than the index. This risk is less pronounced for IWMI at 1.0582.

Concentration in small-cap volatility. Both funds inherit the higher volatility and lower liquidity of the Russell 2000. In periods of risk-off sentiment, bid-ask spreads can widen and option pricing may become unfavorable, constraining the premium both funds can collect.

Derivative/option expiration risk. Both use rolling call overlays; if implied volatility collapses or the Russell 2000 rallies sharply, call premium dries up, forcing distributions to rely more heavily on principal or cash drag, especially for IWMI's outsized payout.

Bottom line

ITWO offers a moderate, sustainable income stream with higher downside sensitivity; IWMI chases maximum distributions with broader upside participation but faces steeper NAV erosion risk at its current yield. If you value simplicity and lower volatility relative to downside, ITWO's profile stands out; if you want maximal current income and can tolerate distribution-dependent NAV pressure, IWMI's scale and tax-overlay mechanics merit scrutiny. Past performance does not predict future results.

AI-generated analysis for educational purposes only. Verify important details independently; past performance does not guarantee future results.

Learn the method

The metrics behind this comparison, explained in the Academy.

Still deciding? Compare them against your own portfolio

See how each ETF fits alongside your real holdings — forecast future income, analyze overlap, and gauge risk. Start a free 7-day Dividend Vision trial and make the call with your full portfolio in view.

Start Free Open in Comparator Browse Screener