IWMI vs SPY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk

IWMI and SPY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWMI is NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF, while SPY is State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF. SPY is broader by holdings count, with 505 positions versus 4 for IWMI. SPY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPY ahead on AIQ Score, 66 versus 52.

Market data as of Oct 21, 2026 market close· Fund characteristics as of Oct 21, 2026
IWMI
Neos
vs
SPY
SPDR
IWMI
NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF
Issuer
Neos
Inception
2024-06-24
SPY
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
Issuer
SPDR
Inception
1993-01-22

What is the main difference between IWMI and SPY?

SPY holds 505 positions to IWMI's 4, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.

Expense ratio
IWMI
0.76%
SPY
0.09%
Lower annual fund costSPY
Holdings
IWMI
4
SPY
505
Broader reported basketSPY
1Y return
IWMI
-0.4%
SPY
+16.4%
Trailing performanceSPY
Annualized volatility
IWMI
15.4%
SPY
12.8%
Lower realized volatilitySPY
MetricIWMISPY
Fund
Expense ratio0.76%0.09%
Holdings4505
Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months14.86%0.99%
Average volume423,42446,698,705
Performance
1Y return-0.4%+16.4%
YTD return+0.3%+12.8%
Risk
Annualized volatility15.4%12.8%
Max drawdown (1Y)-10.6%-9.1%
Beta0.971.00
Sharpe ratio-0.180.91
Sortino ratio-0.281.39
AlgovestIQ
AIQ Score52/10066/100
AIQ Edge Score4/109/10
Momentum41/10063/100
Risk Resilience81/10088/100

AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison

NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF

Data as of Oct 21, 2026· market close· Coverage 64/66 fields· High confidence
AIQ VerdictCompetitiveAIQ Comparison Conviction 7/10

SPY leads

SPY leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions.

Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support SPY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.

Evidence agreement: 3 of 4Comparison trend: Weakening
IWMI

NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF

AIQ Score
52/100
AIQ Edge Score
4/10
SPY

State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF

Leads
AIQ Score
66/100
AIQ Edge Score
9/10

The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPY over IWMI, 66 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. SPY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while IWMI holds the stronger value profile. SPY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. SPY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 14 points over 30 sessions.

Compare NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF and State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.

IWMI vs SPY: 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 wantIWMISPYFits
Lower costExpense ratio0.76%0.09%SPY
Broader diversificationNumber of holdings4505SPY
Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield14.86%0.99%IWMI
Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year-10.6%-9.1%Similar
Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year15.4%12.8%SPY

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.

Currently unavailable

Performance over time

Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.

IWMI
+37.0%
SPY
+44.8%

Total return comparison

Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested

IWMI $13,697 · SPY $14,485

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 SPY against another ticker

Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.

Basic: 2 symbols·Explorer: 3 symbols·Pro and Premium: 5 symbols·Your limit: 2

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.

IWMI advantage
0
SPY advantage
  • Quality44 vs 84
    SPY +40
  • Momentum41 vs 63
    SPY +22
  • Value56 vs 41
    IWMI +15
  • Risk Resilience81 vs 88
    SPY +7

3 of 4 evidence groups favor SPY. SPY’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; 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.

IWMI+2 AIQ

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
SPY+4 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum +16

New signals

  • Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon

SPY's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.

Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWMI and SPY both carry a full feed there.

The central trade-off

SPY (State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.

IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF): the counter-case, on value, 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.

MeasureIWMISPYWhy it matters
Expense ratio0.76%0.09%Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold.
Holdings4505More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns.
Average volume423,42446,698,705Liquidity — matters most if you trade size.
Annualized volatility15.4%12.8%Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure.
Max drawdown (1Y)-10.6%-9.1%The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year.
Sharpe ratio-0.180.91Return per unit of risk. Higher is better.
Beta0.971.00Sensitivity 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.

Technology13.8% vs 38.4%
Healthcare21.0% vs 9.6%
Communication Services2.3% vs 9.8%
Financial Services18.1% vs 11.7%
Industrials13.3% vs 8.0%
Real Estate6.5% vs 1.7%
Basic Materials4.5% vs 1.7%
Energy6.5% vs 3.6%
IWMISPY

How much of the same holdings they own

IWMI and SPY share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.

3 holdings are unique to IWMI, and 504 holdings are unique to SPY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.

What IWMI adds that SPY doesn’t

HoldingIWMISPY
VTWOVanguard Russell 2000 ETF98.67%Not held
RUT 261016C03005000RUT US 10/16/26 C30050.23%Not held
RUT 261016C03050000RUT US 10/16/26 C30500.12%Not held

What SPY adds that IWMI doesn’t

HoldingSPYIWMI
NVDANVIDIA CORP8.08%Not held
AAPLAPPLE INC7.33%Not held
MSFTMICROSOFT CORP5.59%Not held
AMZNAMAZON.COM INC3.77%Not held
GOOGLALPHABET INC CL A2.98%Not held
AVGOBROADCOM INC2.61%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 SPY: five-year payout growth

SPY grew its split-adjusted payout at 5.05% a year over 2020-2025. IWMI began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.

Dividend metricIWMISPY
2025 annual payout$6.842$7.281
Peer ranknot ranked#95 of 138

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 SPY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.

Evidence groupFavorsReading
AIQ ScoreSPY52 vs 66
FundamentalsNot coveredNot covered
ValuationIWMIValue 56 vs 41
TechnicalsSPYPrice vs 50-day -4.7% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day -4% vs 5.9%
Risk ResilienceSPYRisk Resilience 81 vs 88
Analyst expectationsNot coveredNot covered

✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IWMI and SPY and are excluded from the count.

AIQ Decision Stability

Competitive

The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.

  • The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
  • The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
  • 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 SPY.

How the comparison changed

45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20

SPY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 14 points over 30 sessions.

Sep 6IWMI leads above the line · SPY leads belowOct 20
Today
SPY +14
52 vs 66
7 sessions ago
SPY +16
50 vs 66
30 sessions ago
SPY +18
48 vs 66
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.

IWMIConflicted

1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted

Only IWMI

  • Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
  • Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.16%)
  • Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
  • MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
SPYConflicted

4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted

Only SPY

  • Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.84%)
  • EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
  • 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
  • Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
  • MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon

Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling.

SPY 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.

IWMIDivergence

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).

SPYConfirmed strength

Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.53%, AIQ +4 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.

  1. 1IWMI closes the Quality gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPY's edge.
  2. 2IWMI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
  3. 3SPY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
  4. 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate SPY'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

SPY leads 5 of 6 windows
MetricIWMISPY
1 week (5 sessions)-0.2%-1.2%
1 month (20 sessions)-3.2%-0.6%
3 months (63 sessions)-6.4%2.9%
6 months (126 sessions)-4.5%9.2%
Year to date0.3%12.8%
1 year (252 sessions)-0.4%16.4%

Technicals

SPY has the stronger structure
MetricIWMISPY
RSI (14)48.656.2
ADX (14)4112.5
Price vs 50-day-4.7%0.6%
Price vs 200-day-4%5.9%
Volatility (1M, annualized)13.3%9%

Risk

SPY is the more resilient
MetricIWMISPY
Beta0.971
Sharpe ratio-0.180.91
Sortino ratio-0.281.39
Max drawdown-10.6%-9.1%
Current drawdown-9%-1.3%
Annualized volatility15.4%12.8%
Value at risk (95%)-1.7%-1.4%

Straight answers

Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.

What is the difference between IWMI and SPY?

SPY holds 505 positions to IWMI's 4, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.

How much do IWMI and SPY overlap?

IWMI and SPY share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 3 holdings are unique to IWMI, and 504 holdings are unique to SPY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.

Which ETF is more diversified, IWMI or SPY?

SPY holds more positions: 505 versus 4 for IWMI.

Which has the lower expense ratio?

SPY has the lower expense ratio, 0.09% 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 0.99% for SPY.

Which ETF has been more volatile?

IWMI has been more volatile over the past year, at 15.4% annualized against 12.8% for SPY.

Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?

Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past year are similar: -10.6% for IWMI and -9.1% for SPY.

Compare IWMI and SPY 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.