BOCT vs IWMY
Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - October vs Defiance R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF
Which is better, BOCT or IWMY?
BOCT has been ahead.
BOCT has a lower expense ratio. BOCT led over 1Y, 3Y 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 | BOCT | IWMY |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79%Best | 1.05% |
| AUM | $307M | $83M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 39.40% |
| Holdings | 18 | 10 |
| YTD Return | +12.12%Best | +4.37% |
| 1Y Return | +15.15%Best | +1.60% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.46%Best | -3.29% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.73% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 7.9%Best | 14.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -13.6%Best | -35.7% |
| $10,000 over 3 years | $15,959Best | $9,045 |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | Defiance ETFs, LLC |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Option Writing | Option Writing |
| Inception | Sep 28, 2018 | Oct 30, 2023 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 31, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3 years).
BOCT vs IWMY 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 3 years both funds cover.
BOCT vs IWMY Performance
Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - October (BOCT) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and Defiance R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF (IWMY) is an ETF from Defiance ETFs, LLC. Over the past year BOCT returned +15.15% while IWMY returned +1.60%. Year to date, BOCT is up 12.12% versus a gain of 4.37% for IWMY.
Over three years, BOCT compounded at +15.46% per year against -3.29% for IWMY.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWMY has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.7% compared with 7.9% for BOCT. 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 -13.6% for BOCT and -35.7% for IWMY. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.63. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BOCT charges 0.79% per year while IWMY charges 1.05%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $105 annually, a gap of $26 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BOCT currently yields 0.00% against 39.40% for IWMY.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BOCT and IWMY 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, BOCT or IWMY?
BOCT has an expense ratio of 0.79% while IWMY charges 1.05%. BOCT is the cheaper option, by $26 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BOCT or IWMY?
Over the past year BOCT returned +15.15% vs +1.60% for IWMY, so BOCT leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BOCT or IWMY?
IWMY has been the more volatile fund at 14.7% annualized versus 7.9% for BOCT. Worst drawdown: BOCT -13.6% vs IWMY -35.7%.
Should I hold both BOCT and IWMY?
BOCT and IWMY have a monthly-return correlation of 0.63, 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, BOCT or IWMY?
BOCT yields 0.00% while IWMY yields 39.40%, so IWMY currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWMY better than BOCT?
BOCT has a lower expense ratio. BOCT led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.