IWMI vs JEPQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWMI and JEPQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWMI is NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF, while JEPQ is JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF. JEPQ is broader by holdings count, with 110 positions versus 4 for IWMI. JEPQ has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has JEPQ ahead on AIQ Score, 54 versus 52.
What is the main difference between IWMI and JEPQ?
JEPQ puts 61% of its assets in Technology, while IWMI spreads across 11 sectors with none above 21%.
| Metric | IWMI | JEPQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.76% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 4 | 110 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 14.86% | 11.58% |
| Average volume | 423,424 | 6,194,078 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -0.4% | +4.1% |
| YTD return | +0.3% | +2.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 15.4% | 15.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10.6% | -10.3% |
| Beta | 0.97 | 1.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.18 | 0.04 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.28 | 0.05 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 52/100 | 54/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 41/100 | 31/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 81/100 | 80/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF vs JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
JEPQ leads
JEPQ leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 17 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support JEPQ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF
JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JEPQ over IWMI, 54 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. JEPQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while IWMI holds the stronger value profile. JEPQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor JEPQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. JEPQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF and JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWMI vs JEPQ: 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 | JEPQ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.76% | 0.35% | JEPQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 4 | 110 | JEPQ |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 14.86% | 11.58% | IWMI |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -10.6% | -10.3% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 15.4% | 15.1% | Similar |
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 JEPQ 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.
- Quality44 vs 69JEPQ +25
- Value56 vs 45IWMI +11
- Momentum41 vs 31IWMI +10
- Risk Resilience81 vs 80Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor JEPQ. JEPQ’s edge is concentrated in quality; IWMI keeps a meaningful value edge.
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: Value -1
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
JEPQ's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWMI and JEPQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JEPQ (JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation.
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 | JEPQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.76% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 4 | 110 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 423,424 | 6,194,078 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 15.4% | 15.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10.6% | -10.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.18 | 0.04 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.97 | 1.04 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
IWMI and JEPQ share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
3 holdings are unique to IWMI, and 106 holdings are unique to JEPQ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What IWMI adds that JEPQ doesn’t
| Holding | IWMI | JEPQ |
|---|---|---|
| VTWOVanguard Russell 2000 ETF | 98.67% | Not held |
| RUT 261016C03005000RUT US 10/16/26 C3005 | 0.23% | Not held |
| RUT 261016C03050000RUT US 10/16/26 C3050 | 0.12% | Not held |
What JEPQ adds that IWMI doesn’t
| Holding | JEPQ | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP COMMON STOCK | 7.22% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE INC COMMON STOCK | 6.63% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP COMMON | 5.16% | Not held |
| GOOGALPHABET INC-CL C - | 4.77% | Not held |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | 4.67% | Not held |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC COMMON | 3.94% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
IWMI vs JEPQ: five-year payout growth
IWMI began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. JEPQ began paying distributions in 2022, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | IWMI | JEPQ |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $6.842 | $6.123 |
| 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
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor JEPQ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 52 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWMI | Value 56 vs 45 |
| Technicals | JEPQ | Price vs 50-day -4.7% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day -4% vs 0.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 81 vs 80 |
| 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 JEPQ 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 JEPQ.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20JEPQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JEPQ +2
- 52 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- JEPQ +5
- 50 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- JEPQ +17
- 48 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when JEPQ moved ahead of IWMI.
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
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.16%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only JEPQ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.94%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
JEPQ 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.86%, 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.
- 1IWMI closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to JEPQ's edge.
- 2IWMI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3JEPQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 15 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate JEPQ's advantage entirely.
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
JEPQ leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | IWMI | JEPQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.2% | -2.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.2% | -2.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.4% | 0% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.5% | 1.4% |
| Year to date | 0.3% | 2.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.4% | 4.1% |
Technicals
JEPQ has the stronger structure| Metric | IWMI | JEPQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.6 | 29.6 |
| ADX (14) | 41 | 21.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.7% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4% | 0.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.3% | 10.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IWMI | JEPQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.97 | 1.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.18 | 0.04 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.28 | 0.05 |
| Max drawdown | -10.6% | -10.3% |
| Current drawdown | -9% | -3.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 15.4% | 15.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IWMI and JEPQ?
JEPQ puts 61% of its assets in Technology, while IWMI spreads across 11 sectors with none above 21%.
How much do IWMI and JEPQ overlap?
IWMI and JEPQ share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 3 holdings are unique to IWMI, and 106 holdings are unique to JEPQ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWMI or JEPQ?
JEPQ holds more positions: 110 versus 4 for IWMI.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
JEPQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.35% a year against 0.76% for IWMI.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
IWMI, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 14.86% against 11.58% for JEPQ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 15.4% annualized for IWMI and 15.1% for JEPQ.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past year are similar: -10.6% for IWMI and -10.3% for JEPQ.
Compare IWMI and JEPQ 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.