BSTP vs. PJAN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BSTP (Innovator Buffer Step-Up Strategy ETF) and PJAN (Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - January) are both exchange-traded funds - BSTP is a Options Trading fund tracking the S&P 500, while PJAN is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the Cboe S&P 500 15% Buffer Protect January Series Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BSTP returned 14.35%/yr vs 12.96%/yr for PJAN. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BSTP charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for PJAN.

Performance

BSTP vs. PJAN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Buffer Step-Up Strategy ETF (BSTP) and Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - January (PJAN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BSTP achieves a 6.07% return, which is significantly higher than PJAN's 5.13% return.

BSTP

• 1D: -0.32%
• 1M: 3.05%
• YTD: 6.07%
• 6M: 6.56%
• 1Y: 16.71%
• 3Y*: 14.35%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PJAN

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 1.94%
• YTD: 5.13%
• 6M: 5.96%
• 1Y: 14.71%
• 3Y*: 12.96%
• 5Y*: 8.92%
• 10Y*: —

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

BSTP vs. PJAN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BSTP Innovator Buffer Step-Up Strategy ETF	6.07%	11.80%	16.70%	18.14%	-4.95%
PJAN Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - January	5.13%	11.29%	13.45%	18.18%	1.42%

Correlation

The correlation between BSTP and PJAN is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 9, 2022	0.94

The correlation between BSTP and PJAN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BSTP vs. PJAN — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BSTP

BSTP Risk / Return Rank: 65
BSTP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
BSTP Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
BSTP Omega Ratio Rank: 69
BSTP Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
BSTP Martin Ratio Rank: 71

PJAN

PJAN Risk / Return Rank: 79
PJAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
PJAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
PJAN Omega Ratio Rank: 87
PJAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
PJAN Martin Ratio Rank: 83

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BSTP vs. PJAN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Buffer Step-Up Strategy ETF (BSTP) and Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - January (PJAN). 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.

	BSTP	PJAN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.12	2.55	-0.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.01	3.75	-0.74
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.54	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.69	3.19	-0.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.18	17.03	-3.86
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BSTP vs. PJAN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BSTP Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is comparable to the PJAN Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BSTP and PJAN, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BSTP	PJAN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.12	2.55	-0.43
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.00	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.91	0.90	+0.02

Drawdowns

BSTP vs. PJAN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BSTP drawdown since its inception was -16.69%, smaller than the maximum PJAN drawdown of -21.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BSTP and PJAN.

Drawdown Indicators

	BSTP	PJAN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.69%	-21.25%	+4.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.23%	-4.63%	-1.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.69%	-10.49%	-3.20%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-11.93%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.32%	-0.26%	-0.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.52%	-1.73%	-1.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.27%	0.87%	+0.40%

Volatility

BSTP vs. PJAN - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Buffer Step-Up Strategy ETF (BSTP) has a higher volatility of 1.52% compared to Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - January (PJAN) at 1.07%. This indicates that BSTP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PJAN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BSTP	PJAN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.52%	1.07%	+0.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.15%	4.71%	+1.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.93%	5.81%	+2.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.11%	8.93%	+3.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.11%	10.60%	+1.51%

BSTP vs. PJAN - Expense Ratio Comparison

BSTP has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than PJAN's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

BSTP vs. PJAN - Dividend Comparison

Neither BSTP nor PJAN has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BSTP and PJAN in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, BSTP and PJAN 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.

Which is riskier, BSTP or PJAN?

BSTP has higher volatility (1.52%) compared to PJAN (1.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BSTP dropped -16.69% vs PJAN's -21.25%.

Which ETF is better, BSTP or PJAN?

On 3-year performance, BSTP leads with 14.35% vs 12.96% for PJAN. On fees, PJAN is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, PJAN has been the lower-risk option at 1.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BSTP or PJAN?

Over the 3-year period, BSTP has performed better with a 14.35% return vs 12.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BSTP or PJAN?

PJAN is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for BSTP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BSTP or PJAN?

BSTP and PJAN have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BSTP and PJAN?

BSTP is categorized as Options Trading, while PJAN is Defined Outcome. BSTP tracks S&P 500, while PJAN tracks Cboe S&P 500 15% Buffer Protect January Series Index. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for BSTP and 0.79% for PJAN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PJAN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 2.12), 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.