CCSO vs ZJAN

CCSO vs ZJAN

Which is better, CCSO or ZJAN?

Each has led over a different period.

CCSO has a lower expense ratio. CCSO led over the full window, ZJAN over 1Y.

Lower Fees: CCSOHigher Returns: split

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

MetricCCSOZJAN
Expense Ratio0.35%Best0.79%
AUM$45M$109M
Dividend Yield0.64%0.00%
Holdings12415
YTD Return-3.16%+3.98%Best
1Y Return-5.92%+5.91%Best
3Y Return (annualized)+11.97%-
Volatility (annualized)18.4%2.4%Best
Max Drawdown-20.6%-3.2%Best
$10,000 over 1.8 years$12,133Best$11,130
Fund FamilyCarbon Collective FundsInnovator ETFs Trust
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Blend
InceptionSep 19, 2022Jan 2, 2025

Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 2, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.8 years).

CCSO vs ZJAN 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 1.8 years both funds cover.

Compare CCSO against instead:CCSO vs SPYCCSO vs QQQCCSO vs VOOCCSO vs VTIZJAN against:ZJAN vs VXUS

CCSO vs ZJAN Performance

Carbon Collective Climate Solutions US Equity ETF (CCSO) is an ETF from Carbon Collective Funds and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr January (ZJAN) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust. Over the past year CCSO returned -5.92% while ZJAN returned +5.91%. Year to date, CCSO is down 3.16% versus a gain of 3.98% for ZJAN.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

CCSO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.4% compared with 2.4% for ZJAN. 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 -20.6% for CCSO and -3.2% for ZJAN. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.71. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.

Fees and Cost Over Time

CCSO charges 0.35% per year while ZJAN charges 0.79%. On a $10,000 position that is $35 vs $79 annually, a gap of $44 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CCSO currently yields 0.64% against 0.00% for ZJAN.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of CCSO and ZJAN you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

CCSOZJAN

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, CCSO or ZJAN?

CCSO has an expense ratio of 0.35% while ZJAN charges 0.79%. CCSO is the cheaper option, by $44 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, CCSO or ZJAN?

Over the past year CCSO returned -5.92% vs +5.91% for ZJAN, so ZJAN leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), CCSO annualized +11.34% vs +6.13% for ZJAN. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, CCSO or ZJAN?

CCSO has been the more volatile fund at 18.4% annualized versus 2.4% for ZJAN. Worst drawdown: CCSO -20.6% vs ZJAN -3.2%.

Should I hold both CCSO and ZJAN?

CCSO and ZJAN have a monthly-return correlation of 0.71, 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, CCSO or ZJAN?

CCSO yields 0.64% while ZJAN yields 0.00%, so CCSO currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is ZJAN better than CCSO?

CCSO has a lower expense ratio. CCSO led over the full window, ZJAN over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.