BJUL vs. EAPR

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

BJUL (Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July) and EAPR (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds from Innovator - BJUL tracks the S&P 500 while EAPR tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BJUL returned 11.74%/yr vs 5.56%/yr for EAPR. Their 0.57 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. BJUL charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EAPR.

Performance

BJUL vs. EAPR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July (BJUL) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BJUL achieves a 9.42% return, which is significantly lower than EAPR's 10.66% return.

BJUL

• 1D: 1.10%
• 1M: 2.63%
• 6M: 8.59%
• YTD: 9.42%
• 1Y: 16.08%
• 3Y*: 16.08%
• 5Y*: 11.74%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.16%

EAPR

• 1D: 1.16%
• 1M: 1.69%
• 6M: 9.63%
• YTD: 10.66%
• 1Y: 16.65%
• 3Y*: 9.50%
• 5Y*: 5.56%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.10%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BJUL Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July	$791.36K	$3.32M	$1.95M
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	$402.83K	$276.38K	$453.87K

BJUL vs. EAPR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BJUL Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July	9.42%	13.93%	18.41%	21.73%	-7.38%	7.77%
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	10.66%	14.80%	2.86%	8.19%	-5.01%	-2.89%

Correlation

The correlation between BJUL and EAPR is 0.57, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.57
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2021	0.57

The correlation between BJUL and EAPR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.

BJUL vs. EAPR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BJUL	EAPR
Technology	37.9%	45.2%
Financial Services	11.7%	18.5%
Communication Services	10.0%	6.0%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	7.5%
Healthcare	9.1%	2.5%
Industrials	8.4%	6.3%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	2.6%
Energy	3.0%	3.2%
Utilities	2.3%	1.8%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.0%
Basic Materials	1.7%	5.5%

Return for Risk

BJUL vs. EAPR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BJUL

BJUL Risk / Return Rank: 84
BJUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
BJUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
BJUL Omega Ratio Rank: 88
BJUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
BJUL Martin Ratio Rank: 89

EAPR

EAPR Risk / Return Rank: 77
EAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
EAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
EAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 88
EAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
EAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 85

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BJUL vs. EAPR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July (BJUL) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BJUL	EAPR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.17	1.73	+0.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.14	2.53	+0.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.43	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.99	3.17	-0.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.18	13.31	+1.87

BJUL vs. EAPR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BJUL Sharpe Ratio is 2.17, which is comparable to the EAPR Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BJUL and EAPR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BJUL vs. EAPR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BJUL drawdown since its inception was -24.03%, which is greater than EAPR's maximum drawdown of -17.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BJUL and EAPR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BJUL	EAPR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.03%	-17.65%	-6.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.40%	-5.28%	-0.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.06%	-10.24%	-3.82%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.06%	-16.34%	+2.28%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.45%	+1.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.45%	-4.01%	+1.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.06%	1.25%	-0.19%

Volatility

BJUL vs. EAPR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July (BJUL) is 2.83%, while Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) has a volatility of 4.33%. This indicates that BJUL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EAPR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BJUL	EAPR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.83%	4.33%	-1.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.95%	9.33%	-3.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.49%	9.68%	-2.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.65%	10.42%	+1.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.54%	10.30%	+3.24%

BJUL vs. EAPR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BJUL has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than EAPR's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

BJUL vs. EAPR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BJUL nor EAPR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BJUL and EAPR in my portfolio?

BJUL and EAPR have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BJUL or EAPR?

EAPR has higher volatility (4.33%) compared to BJUL (2.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BJUL dropped -24.03% vs EAPR's -17.65%.

Which ETF is better, BJUL or EAPR?

On 5-year performance, BJUL leads with 11.74% vs 5.56% for EAPR. On fees, BJUL is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, BJUL has been the lower-risk option at 2.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BJUL or EAPR?

Over the 5-year period, BJUL has performed better with a 11.74% return vs 5.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BJUL or EAPR?

BJUL is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for EAPR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BJUL or EAPR?

BJUL and EAPR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BJUL and EAPR?

BJUL tracks S&P 500, while EAPR tracks MSCI Emerging Markets. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for BJUL and 0.89% for EAPR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BJUL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs 1.73), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.