JULH vs QQQY
Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - July vs Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF
Which is better, JULH or QQQY?
QQQY has been ahead.
JULH has a lower expense ratio. QQQY 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 | JULH | QQQY |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79%Best | 1.01% |
| AUM | $17M | $192M |
| Dividend Yield | 4.82% | 33.38% |
| Holdings | 27 | 10 |
| YTD Return | +0.24% | +17.03%Best |
| 1Y Return | -0.01% | +20.86%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +4.96% | +28.44%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 2.6%Best | 15.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -5.5%Best | -12.6% |
| $10,000 over 3.1 years | $11,554 | $21,154Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | Defiance ETFs, LLC |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Jul 3, 2023 | Sep 13, 2023 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.1 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 14, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.1 years).
JULH vs QQQY 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 3.1 years both funds cover.
JULH vs QQQY Performance
Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - July (JULH) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF (QQQY) is an ETF from Defiance ETFs, LLC. Over the past year JULH returned -0.01% while QQQY returned +20.86%. Year to date, JULH is up 0.24% versus a gain of 17.03% for QQQY.
Over three years, JULH compounded at +4.96% per year against +28.44% for QQQY.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQY has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.4% compared with 2.6% for JULH. 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 -5.5% for JULH and -12.6% for QQQY. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.41. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
JULH charges 0.79% per year while QQQY charges 1.01%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $101 annually, a gap of $22 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, JULH currently yields 4.82% against 33.38% for QQQY.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of JULH and QQQY 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, JULH or QQQY?
JULH has an expense ratio of 0.79% while QQQY charges 1.01%. JULH is the cheaper option, by $22 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, JULH or QQQY?
Over the past year JULH returned -0.01% vs +20.86% for QQQY, so QQQY leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, JULH or QQQY?
QQQY has been the more volatile fund at 15.4% annualized versus 2.6% for JULH. Worst drawdown: JULH -5.5% vs QQQY -12.6%.
Should I hold both JULH and QQQY?
JULH and QQQY have a monthly-return correlation of 0.41, 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, JULH or QQQY?
JULH yields 4.82% while QQQY yields 33.38%, so QQQY currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQY better than JULH?
JULH has a lower expense ratio. QQQY 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.