Projections assume the current yield and share price remain constant. Actual results will vary.
Total returns
100% reinvested · ex-date convention. Period returns use this fixed assumption, independent of chart settings. YTD and 1Y are cumulative period returns; 3Y, 5Y, and 10Y are annualized. The shared Since-start window is annualized only when it covers at least one year.
IWM has outpaced RYLD over the trailing twelve months, posting a 16.18% total return against 16.15%. The lead holds up over 5 years too: IWM has compounded at 6.00% a year, against 2.53% for RYLD. RYLD has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 12.8% against 21.1% for IWM. 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.
Total return with all distributions reinvested on the ex-dividend date (a modeling convention, not the cash-settlement date), split-adjusted, as of September 30, 2026. YTD and 1Y are cumulative period returns; 3Y, 5Y, and 10Y are annualized. The shared Since-start window is annualized only when it covers at least one year. “Since Apr 2019” measures every fund from April 22, 2019 — the start of shared available history — so all funds share one comparison window. Volatility is the annualized standard deviation of daily total returns over the trailing 3 years. 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 trailing 3 years) — higher is better. Max drawdown is the largest peak-to-trough total-return decline over the same window — shallower is better.
Distribution rate and SEC yield
Metric
IWM
RYLD
Forward distribution rate
1.08%
11.44%
Trailing 12-month yield
0.98%
12.10%
30-day SEC yield
—
0.60%
Total return (price change plus reinvested distributions) is the Total returns section above. A 30-day SEC yield can sit far from the headline distribution rate; both numbers are the fund's own published fields.
Side-by-side snapshot
Side-by-side snapshot. Each row is one metric;
each column is one fund.
Provide exposure to the fund's underlying index or strategy per issuer materials.
Seeks monthly income by tracking an index that holds the Russell 2000 stocks and writes a succession of one-month at-the-money covered call options on the index.
Bottom lineChoose IWM if you want broad equity exposure. Choose RYLD if you want to maximize current income — roughly 11.44%, generated by selling options premium. There's no free lunch: RYLD's payout comes from selling options, which caps upside and can erode the share price over time, while IWM 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. RYLD 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.
ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.
iShares is one of the largest ETF providers globally, known for offering a broad, diversified lineup of exchange-traded funds across multiple asset classes and investment strategies. The company operates 215 funds spanning 15 distinct families, including popular offerings in dividend income, covered call strategies, bonds, equities, ESG-focused investments, and factor-based approaches, with widely-held tickers like AGG (bond), ACWI (global equity), and AOA (allocation). iShares is characterized by its comprehensive fund ecosystem that serves both core portfolio holdings and specialized investment strategies, making it a prominent player for investors seeking both traditional and alternative income-generating ETF solutions.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on IWM.
ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.
Global X is known for developing thematic and alternative investment ETFs with a strong emphasis on income-generating strategies. Their 37-fund lineup spans diverse categories including covered call funds, SuperDividend income products, digital assets, commodities, and sector-specific investments, alongside traditional bond and risk-managed income options. Notable tickers like DIV, MLPA, and BCCC reflect their specialization in high-yield and alternative income strategies, positioning them as a provider focused on investors seeking yield-oriented and thematically-driven exposure.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on RYLD.
IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) and RYLD (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF) are both dividend ETFs, but they take different approaches.
RYLD offers the higher yield at 11.44% vs 1.08% for IWM. A higher yield means more current income per dollar invested, though it may come with different risk characteristics.
IWM is cheaper with an expense ratio of 0.19% compared to 0.60%.
They have different reference exposures: IWM is linked to Russell 2000 Index while RYLD is linked to Cboe Russell 2000 BuyWrite Index, which means their performance drivers differ.
IWM is the larger fund by assets ($77.2B), but assets alone do not establish trading costs or liquidity.
Who should choose each?
Choose IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
Want broad equity exposure.
Want to keep costs low — a 0.19% expense ratio vs 0.60% for RYLD.
Choose RYLD
Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF
Want to maximize current income — RYLD distributes roughly 11.44% from selling options premium, vs 1.08% for IWM.
Are comfortable with an options-income strategy — a large payout in exchange for capped upside.
Prefer lower volatility — a beta of 0.5 vs 1.2 for IWM.
Not sure? Use the income calculator and snapshot above to weigh these trade-offs against your own goals.
Still deciding? Track IWM & RYLD 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.
On a $10,000 investment, IWM would generate roughly $27.00 cash per distribution, while RYLD would produce $95.33 cash per distribution, at current distribution rates.
IWM yield1.08%
RYLD yield11.44%
Cash diff on $10K$68.33
Cost & efficiency
Over 10 years on $10,000, IWM would cost approximately $190 in fees vs $600 for RYLD (simplified, not compounded). The $410.00 difference may be offset by yield or performance.
IWM ER0.19%
RYLD ER0.60%
Strategy & risk
IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index with a small caps approach, while RYLD tracks Cboe Russell 2000 BuyWrite Index with a covered call approach. Beta is 1.24 for IWM and 0.53 for RYLD, making RYLD the less volatile of the two by this measure.
IWM beta1.24
RYLD beta0.53
Fund details
IWM is managed by iShares (launched 05/22/2000) with $77.2B in assets. RYLD is managed by Global X (launched 04/17/2019) with $1.33B in assets.
Do us a favor — if you found this comparison useful, please share it with a friend researching dividend ETFs.
Frequently asked questions
What is the current distribution rate for IWM and RYLD?
IWM currently distributes 1.08% and RYLD 11.44%, based on fund data updated September 2026. Distribution rate moves with both the payout and the share price, so check the as-of date before relying on either figure.
Is IWM or RYLD better for dividend income?
It depends on your goals. RYLD 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 IWM and RYLD?
IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) tracks Russell 2000 Index with a small caps approach, while RYLD (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF) tracks Cboe Russell 2000 BuyWrite Index with a covered call approach. They are issued by iShares and Global X respectively.
Can I hold both IWM and RYLD?
Yes — nothing prevents holding both. Whether the combination actually diversifies depends on how much the underlying exposures overlap, which isn't fully measurable from the data on this page; review each security's holdings, sector, and strategy before treating them as complementary.
Is IWM or RYLD safer?
By Dividend Vision's Distribution Safety Score — a rules-based 0–100 estimate of how resilient a distribution looks, where higher is safer — IWM scores 94, RYLD scores 73, so IWM's payout currently looks the more resilient of the two. RYLD has also shown lower price volatility (beta 0.53 vs 1.24 for IWM). 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, IWM or RYLD?
IWM has an expense ratio of 0.19% while RYLD charges 0.60%. Lower fees mean more of your investment returns stay in your pocket over time.
How much income does $10,000 in IWM vs RYLD generate?
At current rates, $10,000 in IWM would generate roughly $27.00 cash per distribution ($108.00 annually). The same in RYLD would produce about $95.33 cash per distribution ($1,144.00 annually).
Which has performed better historically, IWM or RYLD?
IWM has outpaced RYLD over the trailing twelve months, posting a 16.18% total return against 16.15%. The lead holds up over 5 years too: IWM has compounded at 6.00% a year, against 2.53% for RYLD. RYLD has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 12.8% against 21.1% for IWM. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Explore related screeners
Lateral filters that include these funds — browse the full peer set on DividendVision.
IWM and RYLD both track small-cap equity—the Russell 2000—but use fundamentally different strategies. The core tradeoff is between broad, unhedged small-cap exposure (IWM) and a yield-focused options strategy that caps upside in exchange for higher current payout (RYLD). The options strategy shows up in beta: IWM reports 1.24, reflecting unhedged small-cap volatility, while RYLD reports 0.53, a substantial dampening that reflects the call-selling brake. RYLD's expense ratio of 0.60% is also three times IWM's 0.19%, reflecting the cost of active index management and derivatives overlay. IWM holds $77.2B in assets; RYLD, $1.33B, a roughly 56-fold difference in fund size.
Who each is best for
IWM: Fits investors pursuing small-cap equity exposure with minimal drag, who can tolerate small-cap volatility and do not require high current income. Appropriate for buy-and-hold allocations where capturing the full Russell 2000 beta and dividend is the goal.
RYLD: Fits investors seeking income from small-cap exposure who are willing to accept capped upside and reduced volatility in exchange for monthly distributions. Suits portfolios where steady cash flow takes priority over capturing all market gains.
Key risks to know
NAV erosion at sustained high yields.RYLD's 11.44% distribution rate, if funded partly through options premium and partly through return-of-capital treatment over extended periods, may gradually erode net asset value relative to the underlying Russell 2000. Investors should monitor the fund's composition of cash distributions across dividend, premium, and capital return.
Capped upside in strong rally environments. Each month, RYLD sells calls at or near the money; if the Russell 2000 rallies sharply, holders forego gains above the strike and must watch the position called away. This is the intended trade-off but becomes costly during periods of sustained small-cap outperformance.
Volatility mismatch and options decay timing.RYLD's lower beta (0.53 vs. IWM's 1.24) reflects call-selling dampening, not structural hedging. One-month rolling calls reset frequently; sharp intramonth rallies followed by reversals can lock in realized losses while premium decay partially misses the rebound, creating path-dependent drag that the beta alone does not fully capture.
Concentrated Russell 2000 overlap. Both funds track the same 2,000 small-cap stocks, so their holdings overlap substantially—a consideration if RYLD is held alongside other Russell 2000 exposure. Any structural weakness or sector rotation within that index affects both identically. If you want full participation in small-cap moves and modest dividend reinvestment, IWM's simplicity and cost advantage stand out. If you prioritize steady monthly cash flow and can live with capped gains, RYLD's premium collection changes the payoff structure—though the 0.60% drag and call-selling friction mean the 11.44% yield isn't free. Past performance doesn't predict future results; small-cap volatility and options outcomes remain uncertain.
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.
