JANH vs ONEZ
Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - January vs TrueShares Seasonality Laddered Buffered ETF
Which is better, JANH or ONEZ?
ONEZ has been ahead.
JANH has a lower expense ratio. ONEZ led over 1Y 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 | JANH | ONEZ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79%Best | 0.96% |
| AUM | $12M | $356M |
| Dividend Yield | 6.25% | 3.63% |
| Holdings | 19 | 32 |
| YTD Return | +0.85% | +7.97%Best |
| 1Y Return | +0.12% | +6.09%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 4.9%Best | 9.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -9.4%Best | -13.2% |
| $10,000 over 1.7 years | $10,020 | $11,314Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | TrueShares |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Option Writing | Option Writing |
| Inception | Jan 2, 2024 | Jan 27, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 27, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.7 years).
JANH vs ONEZ 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 1.7 years both funds cover.
JANH vs ONEZ Performance
Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - January (JANH) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and TrueShares Seasonality Laddered Buffered ETF (ONEZ) is an ETF from TrueShares. Over the past year JANH returned +0.12% while ONEZ returned +6.09%. Year to date, JANH is up 0.85% versus a gain of 7.97% for ONEZ.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ONEZ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 9.4% compared with 4.9% for JANH. 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 -9.4% for JANH and -13.2% for ONEZ. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.84. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
JANH charges 0.79% per year while ONEZ charges 0.96%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $96 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, JANH currently yields 6.25% against 3.63% for ONEZ.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of JANH and ONEZ 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, JANH or ONEZ?
JANH has an expense ratio of 0.79% while ONEZ charges 0.96%. JANH is the cheaper option, by $17 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, JANH or ONEZ?
Over the past year JANH returned +0.12% vs +6.09% for ONEZ, so ONEZ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), JANH annualized +0.12% vs +7.53% for ONEZ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, JANH or ONEZ?
ONEZ has been the more volatile fund at 9.4% annualized versus 4.9% for JANH. Worst drawdown: JANH -9.4% vs ONEZ -13.2%.
Should I hold both JANH and ONEZ?
JANH and ONEZ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.84, 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, JANH or ONEZ?
JANH yields 6.25% while ONEZ yields 3.63%, so JANH currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ONEZ better than JANH?
JANH has a lower expense ratio. ONEZ led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.