ACII vs PBFR
Innovator Index Autocallable Income Strategy ETF vs PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF
Which is better, ACII or PBFR?
Each has led over a different period.
PBFR has a lower expense ratio. ACII led over 1Y, PBFR over 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 | PBFR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79% | 0.50%Best |
| AUM | $147M | $233M |
| Dividend Yield | 8.44% | 0.01% |
| Holdings | 18 | 28 |
| YTD Return | +7.34% | +7.53%Best |
| 1Y Return | +10.33%Best | +10.04% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 3.7%Best | 4.0% |
| Max Drawdown | -2.3%Best | -2.8% |
| $10,000 over 1.1 years | $11,005 | $11,081Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | PGIM Investments |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Option Writing | Option Writing |
| Inception | Sep 24, 2025 | Jun 11, 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 PBFR 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 PBFR Performance
Innovator Index Autocallable Income Strategy ETF (ACII) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF (PBFR) is an ETF from PGIM Investments. Over the past year ACII returned +10.33% while PBFR returned +10.04%. Year to date, ACII is up 7.34% versus a gain of 7.53% for PBFR.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PBFR has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 4.0% 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 -2.8% for PBFR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.82. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACII charges 0.79% per year while PBFR 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 0.01% for PBFR.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of ACII and PBFR 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 PBFR?
ACII has an expense ratio of 0.79% while PBFR charges 0.50%. PBFR is the cheaper option, by $29 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ACII or PBFR?
Over the past year ACII returned +10.33% vs +10.04% for PBFR, so ACII leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), ACII annualized +9.10% vs +9.78% for PBFR. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ACII or PBFR?
PBFR has been the more volatile fund at 4.0% annualized versus 3.7% for ACII. Worst drawdown: ACII -2.3% vs PBFR -2.8%.
Should I hold both ACII and PBFR?
ACII and PBFR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.82, 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 PBFR?
ACII yields 8.44% while PBFR yields 0.01%, so ACII currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PBFR better than ACII?
PBFR has a lower expense ratio. ACII led over 1Y, PBFR over the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.