BJAN vs. JULB
BJAN (Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - January) and JULB (Aptus July Buffer ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. BJAN is passively managed, while JULB is actively managed. With a 0.95 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. BJAN charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for JULB.
Performance
BJAN vs. JULB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BJAN achieves a 7.20% return, which is significantly higher than JULB's 6.52% return.
BJAN
- 1D
- 0.15%
- 1M
- 2.66%
- YTD
- 7.20%
- 6M
- 8.74%
- 1Y
- 20.82%
- 3Y*
- 17.37%
- 5Y*
- 10.74%
- 10Y*
- —
JULB
- 1D
- 0.16%
- 1M
- 2.16%
- YTD
- 6.52%
- 6M
- 7.06%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BJAN vs. JULB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BJAN Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - January | 7.20% | 4.18% |
JULB Aptus July Buffer ETF | 6.52% | 2.56% |
Correlation
The correlation between BJAN and JULB is 0.95 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 15, 2025 | 0.95 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BJAN vs. JULB — Risk / Return Rank
BJAN
JULB
BJAN vs. JULB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - January (BJAN) and Aptus July Buffer ETF (JULB). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
| BJAN | JULB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.54 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.34 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.89 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| BJAN | JULB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.71 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.90 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.91 | 2.21 | -1.29 |
Drawdowns
BJAN vs. JULB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BJAN drawdown since its inception was -26.86%, which is greater than JULB's maximum drawdown of -5.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BJAN and JULB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BJAN | JULB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -26.86% | -5.24% | -21.62% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.27% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -13.81% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.38% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.06% | 0.00% | -0.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.91% | -0.87% | -2.04% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.24% | — | — |
Volatility
BJAN vs. JULB - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BJAN | JULB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.40% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 6.06% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 7.70% | 6.79% | +0.91% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 11.97% | 6.79% | +5.18% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 14.06% | 6.79% | +7.27% |
BJAN vs. JULB - Expense Ratio Comparison
BJAN has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than JULB's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
BJAN vs. JULB - Dividend Comparison
Neither BJAN nor JULB has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BJAN Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - January | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 4.66% |
JULB Aptus July Buffer ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.95, BJAN and JULB move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
On fees, JULB is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
JULB is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for BJAN.
BJAN and JULB have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Aptus Capital Advisors. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for BJAN and 0.25% for JULB.
Find the right allocation for BJAN and JULB
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer