BABO vs PAPR
YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF vs Innovator US Equity Power Buffer ETF - April
Which is better, BABO or PAPR?
PAPR has been ahead.
PAPR has a lower expense ratio. PAPR 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 | BABO | PAPR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.79%Best |
| AUM | $13M | $964M |
| Dividend Yield | 101.42% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 26 | 18 |
| YTD Return | -26.21% | +10.66%Best |
| 1Y Return | -25.99% | +13.12%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +11.87% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +8.43% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 40.2% | 5.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -42.6% | -11.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.2 years | $11,384 | $12,663Best |
| Fund Family | YieldMax ETF | Innovator ETFs Trust |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Option Writing | Option Writing |
| Inception | Aug 7, 2024 | Mar 29, 2019 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 8, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.2 years).
BABO vs PAPR 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 2.2 years both funds cover.
BABO vs PAPR Performance
YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF (BABO) is an ETF from YieldMax ETF and Innovator US Equity Power Buffer ETF - April (PAPR) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust. Over the past year BABO returned -25.99% while PAPR returned +13.12%. Year to date, BABO is down 26.21% versus a gain of 10.66% for PAPR.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BABO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 40.2% compared with 5.4% for PAPR. 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 -42.6% for BABO and -11.9% for PAPR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.10. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BABO charges 1.00% per year while PAPR charges 0.79%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $79 annually, a gap of $21 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BABO currently yields 101.42% against 0.00% for PAPR.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BABO and PAPR 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, BABO or PAPR?
BABO has an expense ratio of 1.00% while PAPR charges 0.79%. PAPR is the cheaper option, by $21 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BABO or PAPR?
Over the past year BABO returned -25.99% vs +13.12% for PAPR, so PAPR leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), BABO annualized +6.07% vs +11.33% for PAPR. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BABO or PAPR?
BABO has been the more volatile fund at 40.2% annualized versus 5.4% for PAPR. Worst drawdown: BABO -42.6% vs PAPR -11.9%.
Should I hold both BABO and PAPR?
BABO and PAPR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.10, 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, BABO or PAPR?
BABO yields 101.42% while PAPR yields 0.00%, so BABO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PAPR better than BABO?
PAPR has a lower expense ratio. PAPR 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.