LJUL vs MRCP
Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July vs PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - March
Which is better, LJUL or MRCP?
MRCP has been ahead.
MRCP has a lower expense ratio. MRCP 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 | LJUL | MRCP |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79% | 0.50%Best |
| AUM | $9M | $30M |
| Dividend Yield | 5.23% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 39 | 16 |
| YTD Return | -0.15% | +10.54%Best |
| 1Y Return | +0.85% | +14.01%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 1.2%Best | 6.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -3.2%Best | -10.7% |
| $10,000 over 2.3 years | $10,884 | $13,444Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | PGIM Investments |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Jul 1, 2024 | Feb 29, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 1, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.3 years).
LJUL vs MRCP 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 2.3 years both funds cover.
LJUL vs MRCP Performance
Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July (LJUL) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - March (MRCP) is an ETF from PGIM Investments. Over the past year LJUL returned +0.85% while MRCP returned +14.01%. Year to date, LJUL is down 0.15% versus a gain of 10.54% for MRCP.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MRCP has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 6.3% compared with 1.2% for LJUL. 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 -3.2% for LJUL and -10.7% for MRCP. 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
LJUL charges 0.79% per year while MRCP charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $50 annually, a gap of $29 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, LJUL currently yields 5.23% against 0.00% for MRCP.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of LJUL and MRCP 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, LJUL or MRCP?
LJUL has an expense ratio of 0.79% while MRCP charges 0.50%. MRCP is the cheaper option, by $29 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, LJUL or MRCP?
Over the past year LJUL returned +0.85% vs +14.01% for MRCP, so MRCP leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), LJUL annualized +3.75% vs +13.73% for MRCP. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, LJUL or MRCP?
MRCP has been the more volatile fund at 6.3% annualized versus 1.2% for LJUL. Worst drawdown: LJUL -3.2% vs MRCP -10.7%.
Should I hold both LJUL and MRCP?
LJUL and MRCP 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, LJUL or MRCP?
LJUL yields 5.23% while MRCP yields 0.00%, so LJUL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MRCP better than LJUL?
MRCP has a lower expense ratio. MRCP 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.