ACII vs PMJN
Innovator Index Autocallable Income Strategy ETF vs PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - June
Which is better, ACII or PMJN?
ACII has been ahead.
PMJN has a lower expense ratio. ACII 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 | PMJN |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79% | 0.50%Best |
| AUM | $147M | $10M |
| Dividend Yield | 8.44% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 18 | 12 |
| YTD Return | +7.34%Best | +3.56% |
| 1Y Return | +10.33%Best | +4.87% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 3.7% | 1.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -2.3% | -1.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.1 years | $11,005Best | $10,538 |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | PGIM Investments |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Option Writing | Option Writing |
| Inception | Sep 24, 2025 | Jun 1, 2025 |
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 PMJN 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 PMJN Performance
Innovator Index Autocallable Income Strategy ETF (ACII) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - June (PMJN) is an ETF from PGIM Investments. Over the past year ACII returned +10.33% while PMJN returned +4.87%. Year to date, ACII is up 7.34% versus a gain of 3.56% for PMJN.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ACII has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 3.7% compared with 1.6% for PMJN. 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 -1.1% for PMJN. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.87. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACII charges 0.79% per year while PMJN 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 PMJN.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of ACII and PMJN 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 PMJN?
ACII has an expense ratio of 0.79% while PMJN charges 0.50%. PMJN is the cheaper option, by $29 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ACII or PMJN?
Over the past year ACII returned +10.33% vs +4.87% for PMJN, so ACII leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), ACII annualized +9.10% vs +4.88% for PMJN. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ACII or PMJN?
ACII has been the more volatile fund at 3.7% annualized versus 1.6% for PMJN. Worst drawdown: ACII -2.3% vs PMJN -1.1%.
Should I hold both ACII and PMJN?
ACII and PMJN have a monthly-return correlation of 0.87, 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 PMJN?
ACII yields 8.44% while PMJN yields 0.00%, so ACII currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PMJN better than ACII?
PMJN has a lower expense ratio. ACII 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.