PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
DDFN vs. JULB
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

DDFN vs. JULB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Equity Dual Directional 15 Buffer ETF - November (DDFN) and Aptus July Buffer ETF (JULB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DDFN achieves a 4.46% return, which is significantly lower than JULB's 6.35% return.


DDFN

1D
-0.22%
1M
1.47%
YTD
4.46%
6M
5.06%
1Y
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

JULB

1D
-0.07%
1M
2.40%
YTD
6.35%
6M
6.93%
1Y
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

DDFN vs. JULB - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between DDFN and JULB 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 (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 4, 2025

0.90

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

DDFN vs. JULB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Equity Dual Directional 15 Buffer ETF - November (DDFN) 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.


Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

DDFN vs. JULB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


DDFNJULBDifference

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.73

2.17

-0.44

Drawdowns

DDFN vs. JULB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DDFN drawdown since its inception was -3.40%, smaller than the maximum JULB drawdown of -5.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DDFN and JULB.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


DDFNJULBDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-3.40%

-5.24%

+1.84%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.22%

-0.07%

-0.15%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.47%

-0.87%

+0.40%

Volatility

DDFN vs. JULB - Volatility Comparison


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


DDFNJULBDifference

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.26%

6.81%

-1.55%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.26%

6.81%

-1.55%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5.26%

6.81%

-1.55%

DDFN vs. JULB - Expense Ratio Comparison

DDFN has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than JULB's 0.25% expense ratio.


Dividends

DDFN vs. JULB - Dividend Comparison

Neither DDFN nor JULB has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


DDFN and JULB have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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 DDFN.

DDFN 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 DDFN and 0.25% for JULB.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for DDFN 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