FBY vs PAPR
YieldMax META Option Income Strategy ETF vs Innovator US Equity Power Buffer ETF - April
Which is better, FBY or PAPR?
Each has led over a different period.
PAPR has a lower expense ratio. FBY led over 3Y and the full window, PAPR over 1Y.
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 | FBY | PAPR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.06% | 0.79%Best |
| AUM | $122M | $964M |
| Dividend Yield | 48.91% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 30 | 18 |
| YTD Return | +6.50% | +10.73%Best |
| 1Y Return | -3.99% | +12.86%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.68%Best | +11.88% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +8.41% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 26.6% | 6.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -31.5% | -11.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.2 years | $17,826Best | $13,804 |
| Fund Family | YieldMax ETF | Innovator ETFs Trust |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Option Writing | Option Writing |
| Inception | Jul 27, 2023 | Mar 29, 2019 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 28, 2023 to Oct 15, 2026 (3.2 years).
FBY 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 3.2 years both funds cover.
FBY vs PAPR Performance
YieldMax META Option Income Strategy ETF (FBY) 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 FBY returned -3.99% while PAPR returned +12.86%. Year to date, FBY is up 6.50% versus a gain of 10.73% for PAPR.
Over three years, FBY compounded at +19.68% per year against +11.88% for PAPR.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FBY has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 26.6% compared with 6.1% 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 -31.5% for FBY 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 0.53. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FBY charges 1.06% per year while PAPR charges 0.79%. On a $10,000 position that is $106 vs $79 annually, a gap of $27 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FBY currently yields 48.91% against 0.00% for PAPR.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of FBY 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, FBY or PAPR?
FBY has an expense ratio of 1.06% while PAPR charges 0.79%. PAPR is the cheaper option, by $27 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FBY or PAPR?
Over the past year FBY returned -3.99% vs +12.86% for PAPR, so PAPR leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FBY or PAPR?
FBY has been the more volatile fund at 26.6% annualized versus 6.1% for PAPR. Worst drawdown: FBY -31.5% vs PAPR -11.9%.
Should I hold both FBY and PAPR?
FBY and PAPR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.53, 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, FBY or PAPR?
FBY yields 48.91% while PAPR yields 0.00%, so FBY currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PAPR better than FBY?
PAPR has a lower expense ratio. FBY led over 3Y and the full window, PAPR over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.