LJUL vs PBMR
Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July vs PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF - March
Which is better, LJUL or PBMR?
PBMR has been ahead.
PBMR has a lower expense ratio. PBMR 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 | PBMR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79% | 0.50%Best |
| AUM | $9M | $38M |
| Dividend Yield | 5.23% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 39 | 8 |
| YTD Return | -0.15% | +7.97%Best |
| 1Y Return | +0.85% | +10.57%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 1.2%Best | 4.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -3.2%Best | -7.6% |
| $10,000 over 2.3 years | $10,884 | $12,600Best |
| 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 PBMR 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 PBMR Performance
Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July (LJUL) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF - March (PBMR) is an ETF from PGIM Investments. Over the past year LJUL returned +0.85% while PBMR returned +10.57%. Year to date, LJUL is down 0.15% versus a gain of 7.97% for PBMR.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PBMR has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 4.3% 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 -7.6% for PBMR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.42. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LJUL charges 0.79% per year while PBMR 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 PBMR.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of LJUL and PBMR 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 PBMR?
LJUL has an expense ratio of 0.79% while PBMR charges 0.50%. PBMR is the cheaper option, by $29 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, LJUL or PBMR?
Over the past year LJUL returned +0.85% vs +10.57% for PBMR, so PBMR leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), LJUL annualized +3.75% vs +10.57% for PBMR. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, LJUL or PBMR?
PBMR has been the more volatile fund at 4.3% annualized versus 1.2% for LJUL. Worst drawdown: LJUL -3.2% vs PBMR -7.6%.
Should I hold both LJUL and PBMR?
LJUL and PBMR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.42, 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 PBMR?
LJUL yields 5.23% while PBMR yields 0.00%, so LJUL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PBMR better than LJUL?
PBMR has a lower expense ratio. PBMR 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.