IWMY vs PAUG
Defiance R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF vs Innovator US Equity Power Buffer ETF - August
Which is better, IWMY or PAUG?
PAUG has been ahead.
PAUG has a lower expense ratio. PAUG 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 | IWMY | PAUG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.05% | 0.79%Best |
| AUM | $83M | $1.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 39.40% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 10 | 18 |
| YTD Return | +4.37% | +8.30%Best |
| 1Y Return | +1.60% | +10.79%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -3.29% | +14.33%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +9.63% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.7% | 6.2%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -35.7% | -10.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 3 years | $9,045 | $15,396Best |
| Fund Family | Defiance ETFs, LLC | Innovator ETFs Trust |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Option Writing | Option Writing |
| Inception | Oct 30, 2023 | Aug 1, 2019 |
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).
IWMY vs PAUG 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.
IWMY vs PAUG Performance
Defiance R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF (IWMY) is an ETF from Defiance ETFs, LLC and Innovator US Equity Power Buffer ETF - August (PAUG) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust. Over the past year IWMY returned +1.60% while PAUG returned +10.79%. Year to date, IWMY is up 4.37% versus a gain of 8.30% for PAUG.
Over three years, IWMY compounded at -3.29% per year against +14.33% for PAUG.
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 6.2% for PAUG. 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 -35.7% for IWMY and -10.4% for PAUG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.55. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWMY charges 1.05% per year while PAUG charges 0.79%. On a $10,000 position that is $105 vs $79 annually, a gap of $26 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWMY currently yields 39.40% against 0.00% for PAUG.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IWMY and PAUG 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, IWMY or PAUG?
IWMY has an expense ratio of 1.05% while PAUG charges 0.79%. PAUG is the cheaper option, by $26 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWMY or PAUG?
Over the past year IWMY returned +1.60% vs +10.79% for PAUG, so PAUG leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWMY or PAUG?
IWMY has been the more volatile fund at 14.7% annualized versus 6.2% for PAUG. Worst drawdown: IWMY -35.7% vs PAUG -10.4%.
Should I hold both IWMY and PAUG?
IWMY and PAUG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.55, 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, IWMY or PAUG?
IWMY yields 39.40% while PAUG yields 0.00%, so IWMY currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PAUG better than IWMY?
PAUG has a lower expense ratio. PAUG 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.