LOCT vs PBJN
Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - October vs PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF - June
Which is better, LOCT or PBJN?
PBJN has been ahead.
PBJN has a lower expense ratio. PBJN 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 | LOCT | PBJN |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79% | 0.50%Best |
| AUM | $11M | $59M |
| Dividend Yield | 5.18% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 12 | 14 |
| YTD Return | -0.06% | +5.35%Best |
| 1Y Return | +1.20% | +7.56%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -0.04% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 1.7%Best | 4.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -4.7%Best | -8.7% |
| $10,000 over 2.4 years | $10,838 | $12,644Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | PGIM Investments |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Oct 2, 2023 | May 31, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.4 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 3, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.4 years).
LOCT vs PBJN 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 2.4 years both funds cover.
LOCT vs PBJN Performance
Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - October (LOCT) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF - June (PBJN) is an ETF from PGIM Investments. Over the past year LOCT returned +1.20% while PBJN returned +7.56%. Year to date, LOCT is down 0.06% versus a gain of 5.35% for PBJN.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PBJN has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 4.7% compared with 1.7% for LOCT. 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 -4.7% for LOCT and -8.7% for PBJN. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.77. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LOCT charges 0.79% per year while PBJN 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, LOCT currently yields 5.18% against 0.00% for PBJN.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of LOCT and PBJN 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, LOCT or PBJN?
LOCT has an expense ratio of 0.79% while PBJN charges 0.50%. PBJN is the cheaper option, by $29 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, LOCT or PBJN?
Over the past year LOCT returned +1.20% vs +7.56% for PBJN, so PBJN leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), LOCT annualized +3.41% vs +10.27% for PBJN. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, LOCT or PBJN?
PBJN has been the more volatile fund at 4.7% annualized versus 1.7% for LOCT. Worst drawdown: LOCT -4.7% vs PBJN -8.7%.
Should I hold both LOCT and PBJN?
LOCT and PBJN have a monthly-return correlation of 0.77, 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, LOCT or PBJN?
LOCT yields 5.18% while PBJN yields 0.00%, so LOCT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PBJN better than LOCT?
PBJN has a lower expense ratio. PBJN 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.