RMT vs RSSL
Royce Micro-Cap Trust Inc. vs Global X Russell 2000 ETF
Which is better, RMT or RSSL?
RMT has been ahead.
RSSL has a lower expense ratio. RMT led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | RMT | RSSL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.35% | 0.08%Best |
| AUM | $830M | $1.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 5.71% | 1.29% |
| Holdings | 171 | 1,981 |
| YTD Return | +28.04%Best | +9.62% |
| 1Y Return | +32.06%Best | +10.21% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +25.90% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.78% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.1% | 18.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -31.9% | -28.2%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.4 years | $16,253Best | $13,575 |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | Global X by mirae Asset |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Small Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 14, 1993 | Jun 4, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.4 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 5, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.4 years).
RMT vs RSSL growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 2.4 years both funds cover.
RMT vs RSSL Performance
Royce Micro-Cap Trust Inc. (RMT) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and Global X Russell 2000 ETF (RSSL) is an ETF from Global X by mirae Asset. Over the past year RMT returned +32.06% while RSSL returned +10.21%. Year to date, RMT is up 28.04% versus a gain of 9.62% for RSSL.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RMT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.1% compared with 18.4% for RSSL. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -31.9% for RMT and -28.2% for RSSL. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.92. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
RMT charges 1.35% per year while RSSL charges 0.08%. On a $10,000 position that is $135 vs $8 annually, a gap of $127 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, RMT currently yields 5.71% against 1.29% for RSSL.
Holdings Overlap
At least 60.9% of RMT's money is in holdings RSSL also owns.
Stated as a floor: for RSSL, our book for it covers 90.4% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
The two holdings books were reported 77 days apart, RMT as of Jun 30, 2026 and RSSL as of Sep 15, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
95 positions in common, counted across the 169 positions we hold weights for in RMT and 1,560 in RSSL, against full books of 171 and 1,981.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in RMT | Weight in RSSL | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| UCTTUltra Clean Hold | 1.80% | 0.11% | 1.69% |
| COHUCohu Inc | 1.65% | 0.09% | 1.56% |
| GHMGraham Corp Com | 1.54% | 0.03% | 1.51% |
| BELFBBel Fuse Inc Class B | 1.44% | 0.10% | 1.34% |
| NWPXNorthwest Pipe Co | 1.46% | 0.03% | 1.43% |
| CECOCeco Environmental Corp Common Stock Usd 0.01 | 1.26% | 0.13% | 1.13% |
| LINDLindblad Expeditions Holdings Inc | 1.31% | 0.04% | 1.27% |
| PKEPark Aerospace Corp | 1.22% | 0.02% | 1.20% |
| ESTAEstablishment Labs Holdings Inc | 1.11% | 0.06% | 1.05% |
| DGIIDigi International Inc | 1.07% | 0.08% | 0.99% |
60.9% of RMT is already inside RSSL.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, RMT or RSSL?
RMT has an expense ratio of 1.35% while RSSL charges 0.08%. RSSL is the cheaper option, by $127 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, RMT or RSSL?
Over the past year RMT returned +32.06% vs +10.21% for RSSL, so RMT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), RMT annualized +22.43% vs +13.58% for RSSL. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, RMT or RSSL?
RMT has been the more volatile fund at 21.1% annualized versus 18.4% for RSSL. Worst drawdown: RMT -31.9% vs RSSL -28.2%.
Should I hold both RMT and RSSL?
RMT and RSSL have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between RMT and RSSL?
At least 60.9% of RMT's money is in holdings RSSL also owns. Our book for RSSL is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 95 positions in common, counted across the 169 positions we hold weights for in RMT and 1,560 in RSSL.
Which pays a higher dividend, RMT or RSSL?
RMT yields 5.71% while RSSL yields 1.29%, so RMT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RSSL better than RMT?
RSSL has a lower expense ratio. RMT led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.