POCT vs PYPY
Innovator US Equity Power Buffer ETF - October vs YieldMax PYPL Option Income Strategy ETF
Which is better, POCT or PYPY?
POCT has been ahead.
POCT has a lower expense ratio. POCT 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 | POCT | PYPY |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79%Best | 1.31% |
| AUM | $1.1B | $12M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 65.20% |
| Holdings | 18 | 25 |
| YTD Return | +9.70%Best | -7.52% |
| 1Y Return | +12.26%Best | -20.49% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.93%Best | +0.18% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.10% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 5.8%Best | 30.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -10.2%Best | -53.6% |
| $10,000 over 3 years | $14,185Best | $9,839 |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | YieldMax ETF |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Option Writing | Option Writing |
| Inception | Sep 28, 2018 | Sep 25, 2023 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 26, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3 years).
POCT vs PYPY 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.
POCT vs PYPY Performance
Innovator US Equity Power Buffer ETF - October (POCT) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and YieldMax PYPL Option Income Strategy ETF (PYPY) is an ETF from YieldMax ETF. Over the past year POCT returned +12.26% while PYPY returned -20.49%. Year to date, POCT is up 9.70% versus a loss of 7.52% for PYPY.
Over three years, POCT compounded at +11.93% per year against +0.18% for PYPY.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PYPY has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.7% compared with 5.8% for POCT. 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 -10.2% for POCT and -53.6% for PYPY. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.34. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
POCT charges 0.79% per year while PYPY charges 1.31%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $131 annually, a gap of $52 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, POCT currently yields 0.00% against 65.20% for PYPY.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of POCT and PYPY 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, POCT or PYPY?
POCT has an expense ratio of 0.79% while PYPY charges 1.31%. POCT is the cheaper option, by $52 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, POCT or PYPY?
Over the past year POCT returned +12.26% vs -20.49% for PYPY, so POCT leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, POCT or PYPY?
PYPY has been the more volatile fund at 30.7% annualized versus 5.8% for POCT. Worst drawdown: POCT -10.2% vs PYPY -53.6%.
Should I hold both POCT and PYPY?
POCT and PYPY have a monthly-return correlation of 0.34, 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, POCT or PYPY?
POCT yields 0.00% while PYPY yields 65.20%, so PYPY currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PYPY better than POCT?
POCT has a lower expense ratio. POCT 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.