ACII vs FEBP
Innovator Index Autocallable Income Strategy ETF vs PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - February
Which is better, ACII or FEBP?
FEBP has been ahead.
FEBP has a lower expense ratio. FEBP led over 1Y and the full window.
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 | ACII | FEBP |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79% | 0.50%Best |
| AUM | $147M | $30M |
| Dividend Yield | 8.44% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 18 | 16 |
| YTD Return | +7.34% | +10.15%Best |
| 1Y Return | +10.33% | +13.96%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 3.7%Best | 7.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -2.3%Best | -6.2% |
| $10,000 over 1.1 years | $11,005 | $11,494Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | PGIM Investments |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Option Writing | Option Writing |
| Inception | Sep 24, 2025 | Jan 31, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.1 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 25, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.1 years).
ACII vs FEBP 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 1.1 years both funds cover.
ACII vs FEBP Performance
Innovator Index Autocallable Income Strategy ETF (ACII) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP) is an ETF from PGIM Investments. Over the past year ACII returned +10.33% while FEBP returned +13.96%. Year to date, ACII is up 7.34% versus a gain of 10.15% for FEBP.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FEBP has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 7.1% compared with 3.7% for ACII. 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 -2.3% for ACII and -6.2% for FEBP. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.80. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACII charges 0.79% per year while FEBP charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $50 annually, a gap of $29 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACII currently yields 8.44% against 0.00% for FEBP.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of ACII and FEBP you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ACII or FEBP?
ACII has an expense ratio of 0.79% while FEBP charges 0.50%. FEBP is the cheaper option, by $29 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ACII or FEBP?
Over the past year ACII returned +10.33% vs +13.96% for FEBP, so FEBP leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), ACII annualized +9.10% vs +13.49% for FEBP. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ACII or FEBP?
FEBP has been the more volatile fund at 7.1% annualized versus 3.7% for ACII. Worst drawdown: ACII -2.3% vs FEBP -6.2%.
Should I hold both ACII and FEBP?
ACII and FEBP have a monthly-return correlation of 0.80, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACII or FEBP?
ACII yields 8.44% while FEBP yields 0.00%, so ACII currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FEBP better than ACII?
FEBP has a lower expense ratio. FEBP led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.