CAOS vs JULH
Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF vs Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - July
Which is better, CAOS or JULH?
Each has led over a different period.
CAOS has a lower expense ratio. CAOS led over 1Y and the full window, JULH over 3Y.
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 | CAOS | JULH |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.63%Best | 0.79% |
| AUM | $705M | $17M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 4.82% |
| Holdings | 12 | 27 |
| YTD Return | +1.68%Best | +0.24% |
| 1Y Return | +1.45%Best | -0.01% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +3.57% | +4.96%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 1.6%Best | 2.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -3.6%Best | -14.5% |
| $10,000 over 3.3 years | $11,285Best | $10,076 |
| Fund Family | Alpha Architect | Innovator ETFs Trust |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Aug 14, 2013 | Jul 3, 2023 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 3, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.3 years).
CAOS vs JULH 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 3.3 years both funds cover.
CAOS vs JULH Performance
Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) is an ETF from Alpha Architect and Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - July (JULH) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust. Over the past year CAOS returned +1.45% while JULH returned -0.01%. Year to date, CAOS is up 1.68% versus a gain of 0.24% for JULH.
Over three years, CAOS compounded at +3.57% per year against +4.96% for JULH.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
JULH has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 2.5% compared with 1.6% for CAOS. 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 -3.6% for CAOS and -14.5% for JULH. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.29. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CAOS charges 0.63% per year while JULH charges 0.79%. On a $10,000 position that is $63 vs $79 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CAOS currently yields 0.00% against 4.82% for JULH.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of CAOS and JULH 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, CAOS or JULH?
CAOS has an expense ratio of 0.63% while JULH charges 0.79%. CAOS is the cheaper option, by $16 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CAOS or JULH?
Over the past year CAOS returned +1.45% vs -0.01% for JULH, so CAOS leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CAOS or JULH?
JULH has been the more volatile fund at 2.5% annualized versus 1.6% for CAOS. Worst drawdown: CAOS -3.6% vs JULH -14.5%.
Should I hold both CAOS and JULH?
CAOS and JULH have a monthly-return correlation of 0.29, 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, CAOS or JULH?
CAOS yields 0.00% while JULH yields 4.82%, so JULH currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is JULH better than CAOS?
CAOS has a lower expense ratio. CAOS led over 1Y and the full window, JULH over 3Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.