JULJ vs ZALT
Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July vs Innovator US Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly
Which is better, JULJ or ZALT?
ZALT has been ahead.
ZALT has a lower expense ratio. ZALT 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 | JULJ | ZALT |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79% | 0.69%Best |
| AUM | $14M | $794M |
| Dividend Yield | 4.49% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 27 | 18 |
| YTD Return | -0.22% | +6.44%Best |
| 1Y Return | -0.40% | +9.12%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +4.02% | +10.33%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 2.0%Best | 3.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -3.6%Best | -8.2% |
| $10,000 over 3 years | $11,278 | $13,518Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | Innovator ETFs Trust |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Jul 3, 2023 | Oct 2, 2023 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 2, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3 years).
JULJ vs ZALT 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.
JULJ vs ZALT Performance
Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July (JULJ) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and Innovator US Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (ZALT) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust. Over the past year JULJ returned -0.40% while ZALT returned +9.12%. Year to date, JULJ is down 0.22% versus a gain of 6.44% for ZALT.
Over three years, JULJ compounded at +4.02% per year against +10.33% for ZALT.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ZALT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 3.8% compared with 2.0% for JULJ. 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 -3.6% for JULJ and -8.2% for ZALT. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.57. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
JULJ charges 0.79% per year while ZALT charges 0.69%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $69 annually, a gap of $10 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, JULJ currently yields 4.49% against 0.00% for ZALT.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of JULJ and ZALT 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, JULJ or ZALT?
JULJ has an expense ratio of 0.79% while ZALT charges 0.69%. ZALT is the cheaper option, by $10 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, JULJ or ZALT?
Over the past year JULJ returned -0.40% vs +9.12% for ZALT, so ZALT leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, JULJ or ZALT?
ZALT has been the more volatile fund at 3.8% annualized versus 2.0% for JULJ. Worst drawdown: JULJ -3.6% vs ZALT -8.2%.
Should I hold both JULJ and ZALT?
JULJ and ZALT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.57, 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, JULJ or ZALT?
JULJ yields 4.49% while ZALT yields 0.00%, so JULJ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ZALT better than JULJ?
ZALT has a lower expense ratio. ZALT 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.