IWMI vs IWMY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWMI and IWMY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWMI is NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF, while IWMY is R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF. IWMY is broader by holdings count, with 5 positions versus 4 for IWMI. IWMI has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IWMI ahead on AIQ Score, 52 versus 47.
| Metric | IWMI | IWMY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.76% | 1.05% |
| Holdings | 4 | 5 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 14.86% | 38% |
| Average volume | 423,424 | 51,811 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -0.4% | -24.4% |
| YTD return | +0.3% | -15.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 15.4% | 16.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10.6% | -26.1% |
| Beta | 0.97 | 1.07 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.18 | -1.79 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.28 | -2.58 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 52/100 | 47/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 41/100 | 29/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 81/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF vs R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF
IWMI leads
IWMI leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support IWMI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF
R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWMI over IWMY, 52 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. IWMI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. IWMI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWMI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. IWMI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF and R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWMI vs IWMY: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | IWMI | IWMY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.76% | 1.05% | IWMI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 4 | 5 | IWMY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 14.86% | 38% | IWMY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -10.6% | -26.1% | IWMI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 15.4% | 16.8% | IWMI |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare IWMI and IWMY against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum41 vs 29IWMI +12
- Quality44 vs 34IWMI +10
- Risk Resilience81 vs 77IWMI +4
- Value56 vs 59Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor IWMI. IWMI’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
New signals
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.16%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
IWMI's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWMI and IWMY both carry a full feed there.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | IWMI | IWMY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.76% | 1.05% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 4 | 5 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 423,424 | 51,811 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 15.4% | 16.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10.6% | -26.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.18 | -1.79 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.97 | 1.07 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
IWMI vs IWMY: five-year payout growth
IWMI began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. IWMY began paying distributions in 2023, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | IWMI | IWMY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $6.842 | $12.477 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | not ranked |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWMI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IWMI | 52 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 56 vs 59 |
| Technicals | IWMI | Price vs 50-day -4.7% vs -6.5%; vs 200-day -4% vs -12.6% |
| Risk Resilience | IWMI | Risk Resilience 81 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IWMI and IWMY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on IWMI.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20IWMI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IWMI +5
- 52 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- IWMI +4
- 50 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- IWMI +2
- 48 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only IWMI
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
Only IWMY
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, Downtrend Structure Active.
IWMI leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.89%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.24%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1IWMY closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWMI's edge.
- 2IWMY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3IWMI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
IWMI leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | IWMI | IWMY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.2% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.2% | -6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.4% | -13.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.5% | -14.5% |
| Year to date | 0.3% | -15.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.4% | -24.4% |
Technicals
IWMI has the stronger structure| Metric | IWMI | IWMY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.6 | 35.1 |
| ADX (14) | 41 | 53.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.7% | -6.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4% | -12.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.3% | 13.8% |
Risk
IWMI is the more resilient| Metric | IWMI | IWMY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.97 | 1.07 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.18 | -1.79 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.28 | -2.58 |
| Max drawdown | -10.6% | -26.1% |
| Current drawdown | -9% | -24.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 15.4% | 16.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWMI or IWMY?
IWMY holds more positions: 5 versus 4 for IWMI.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IWMI has the lower expense ratio, 0.76% a year against 1.05% for IWMY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
IWMY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 38% against 14.86% for IWMI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IWMY has been more volatile over the past year, at 16.8% annualized against 15.4% for IWMI.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IWMI fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -10.6% against -26.1% for IWMY.
Compare IWMI and IWMY with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.