NJAN vs QTJL
Innovator Growth 100 Power Buffer ETF - January vs Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - July
Which is better, NJAN or QTJL?
Each has led over a different period.
NJAN led over 1Y, QTJL over 3Y, 5Y 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 | NJAN | QTJL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79%Tie | 0.79%Tie |
| AUM | $340M | $27M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 18 | 15 |
| YTD Return | +10.68%Best | +10.01% |
| 1Y Return | +14.40%Best | +14.05% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.14% | +19.24%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.84% | +10.15%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 10.6%Best | 16.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -20.7%Best | -33.4% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,585 | $16,215Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | Innovator ETFs Trust |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Jan 1, 2020 | Jun 30, 2021 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 1, 2021 to Oct 14, 2026 (5.3 years).
NJAN vs QTJL 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 5.3 years both funds cover.
NJAN vs QTJL Performance
Innovator Growth 100 Power Buffer ETF - January (NJAN) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - July (QTJL) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust. Over the past year NJAN returned +14.40% while QTJL returned +14.05%. Year to date, NJAN is up 10.68% versus a gain of 10.01% for QTJL.
Over three years, NJAN compounded at +14.14% per year against +19.24% for QTJL; over five years the annualized figures are +7.84% and +10.15% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QTJL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.6% compared with 10.6% for NJAN. 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 -20.7% for NJAN and -33.4% for QTJL. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
NJAN charges 0.79% per year while QTJL charges 0.79%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $79 annually. On income, NJAN currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for QTJL.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of NJAN and QTJL 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, NJAN or QTJL?
NJAN has an expense ratio of 0.79% while QTJL charges 0.79%. At the precision these are quoted to, they cost the same.
Which performed better, NJAN or QTJL?
Over the past year NJAN returned +14.40% vs +14.05% for QTJL, so NJAN leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, NJAN or QTJL?
QTJL has been the more volatile fund at 16.6% annualized versus 10.6% for NJAN. Worst drawdown: NJAN -20.7% vs QTJL -33.4%.
Should I hold both NJAN and QTJL?
NJAN and QTJL have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, 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, NJAN or QTJL?
NJAN yields 0.00% while QTJL yields 0.00%, so QTJL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QTJL better than NJAN?
NJAN led over 1Y, QTJL over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.