A head-to-head comparison of NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF and NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF covering yield, cost, risk, and income potential.
Data updated September 22, 2026
Best for
IWMIInvestors who want index call spreads structured for Section 1256 tax treatment.
MLPIInvestors who want a covered-call overwrite written on the holdings themselves.
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.
IWMI has lagged MLPI over the year to date, posting a 14.53% total return against 15.12%. 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 22, 2026. YTD and 1Y are cumulative; windows of one year or longer are annualized. “Since Dec 2025” measures every fund from December 18, 2025 — 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 shared window since Dec 2025. 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 shared window since Dec 2025) — 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.
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
Seeks to deliver high monthly income with exposure to master limited partnerships through an overlay strategy.
Bottom lineChoose IWMI if you want index call spreads structured for Section 1256 tax treatment. Choose MLPI if you want a covered-call overwrite written on the holdings themselves. IWMI and MLPI both use option or derivative overlays. Their tradeoff is the underlying exposure, how each option strategy is implemented, and the yield each targets; either overlay can limit upside participation, so neither offers uncapped 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 and MLPI generate 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.
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 and MLPI.
IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF) and MLPI (NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF) are both monthly-pay dividend ETFs, but they take different approaches.
They have different reference exposures: IWMI is linked to Russell 2000 Index while MLPI is linked to Master limited partnerships, which means their performance drivers differ.
IWMI is the larger fund by assets ($1.28B), but assets alone do not establish trading costs or liquidity.
Who should choose each?
Choose IWMI
NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF
Want index call spreads structured for Section 1256 tax treatment.
Are comfortable with an options-income strategy — a large payout in exchange for capped upside.
Choose MLPI
NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF
Want a covered-call overwrite on the stocks the fund holds.
Are comfortable with an options-income strategy — a large payout in exchange for capped upside.
Not sure? Use the income calculator and snapshot above to weigh these trade-offs against your own goals.
Still deciding? Track IWMI & MLPI 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, IWMI would generate roughly $120.42 cash per distribution, while MLPI would produce $120.42 cash per distribution, at current distribution rates. Both pay monthly distributions.
IWMI yield14.45%
MLPI yield14.45%
Cash diff on $10K$0.00
Cost & efficiency
Over 10 years on $10,000, IWMI would cost approximately $680 in fees vs $680 for MLPI (simplified, not compounded). Both charge the same expense ratio.
IWMI ER0.68%
MLPI ER0.68%
Strategy & risk
IWMI tracks Russell 2000 Index with an options approach, while MLPI tracks Master limited partnerships with an options approach.
IWMI beta1.0582
MLPI beta—
Fund details
IWMI is managed by NEOS (launched 06/24/2024) with $1.28B in assets. MLPI is managed by NEOS (launched 12/18/2025) with $46.4M 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 IWMI and MLPI?
IWMI currently distributes 14.45% and MLPI 14.45%, 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 IWMI or MLPI 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 IWMI and MLPI?
IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF) tracks Russell 2000 Index with an options approach, while MLPI (NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF) tracks Master limited partnerships with an options approach. They are issued by NEOS and NEOS respectively.
Can I hold both IWMI and MLPI?
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 IWMI or MLPI 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, MLPI scores 79, so IWMI's payout currently looks the more resilient of the two. 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, IWMI or MLPI?
IWMI and MLPI both charge the same expense ratio of 0.68%, so neither is cheaper on fees — pick based on yield, strategy, or underlying index instead.
How much income does $10,000 in IWMI vs MLPI generate?
At current rates, $10,000 in IWMI would generate roughly $120.42 cash per distribution ($1,445.00 annually). The same in MLPI would produce about $120.42 cash per distribution ($1,445.00 annually).
Which has performed better historically, IWMI or MLPI?
IWMI has lagged MLPI over the year to date, posting a 14.53% total return against 15.12%. 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.
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.
