JULH vs RSST
Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - July vs Return Stacked US Stocks & Managed Futures ETF
Which is better, JULH or RSST?
RSST has been ahead.
JULH has a lower expense ratio. RSST 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 | RSST |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79%Best | 0.99% |
| AUM | $17M | $602M |
| Dividend Yield | 4.82% | 0.23% |
| Holdings | 27 | 36 |
| YTD Return | +0.24% | +25.38%Best |
| 1Y Return | -0.01% | +32.18%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +4.96% | +22.28%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 2.6%Best | 17.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -5.5%Best | -30.8% |
| $10,000 over 3.1 years | $11,588 | $17,822Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | Return Stacked ETF |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Jul 3, 2023 | Sep 6, 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 6, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.1 years).
JULH vs RSST 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 RSST Performance
Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - July (JULH) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and Return Stacked US Stocks & Managed Futures ETF (RSST) is an ETF from Return Stacked ETF. Over the past year JULH returned -0.01% while RSST returned +32.18%. Year to date, JULH is up 0.24% versus a gain of 25.38% for RSST.
Over three years, JULH compounded at +4.96% per year against +22.28% for RSST.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RSST has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.1% 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 -30.8% for RSST. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.39. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
JULH charges 0.79% per year while RSST charges 0.99%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $99 annually, a gap of $20 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, JULH currently yields 4.82% against 0.23% for RSST.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of JULH and RSST 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 RSST?
JULH has an expense ratio of 0.79% while RSST charges 0.99%. JULH is the cheaper option, by $20 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, JULH or RSST?
Over the past year JULH returned -0.01% vs +32.18% for RSST, so RSST leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, JULH or RSST?
RSST has been the more volatile fund at 17.1% annualized versus 2.6% for JULH. Worst drawdown: JULH -5.5% vs RSST -30.8%.
Should I hold both JULH and RSST?
JULH and RSST have a monthly-return correlation of 0.39, 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 RSST?
JULH yields 4.82% while RSST yields 0.23%, so JULH currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RSST better than JULH?
JULH has a lower expense ratio. RSST 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.