DECT vs. JULJ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DECT (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Dec ETF) and JULJ (Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, DECT returned 21.15% vs 5.56% for JULJ. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. DECT charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for JULJ.

Performance

DECT vs. JULJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Dec ETF (DECT) and Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July (JULJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DECT achieves a 7.16% return, which is significantly higher than JULJ's 1.82% return.

DECT

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 3.06%
• YTD: 7.16%
• 6M: 7.61%
• 1Y: 21.15%
• 3Y*: 14.52%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

JULJ

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 1.82%
• 6M: 2.32%
• 1Y: 5.56%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

DECT vs. JULJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
DECT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Dec ETF	7.16%	15.04%	11.86%	5.37%
JULJ Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July	1.82%	5.91%	6.17%	3.54%

Correlation

The correlation between DECT and JULJ is 0.68, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 5, 2023	0.69

The correlation between DECT and JULJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

DECT vs. JULJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DECT	JULJ
Technology	36.2%	33.6%
Financial Services	11.9%	12.4%
Communication Services	10.9%	10.5%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	10.0%
Healthcare	8.4%	9.5%
Industrials	8.1%	8.5%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	5.3%
Energy	3.5%	4.0%
Utilities	2.3%	2.5%
Real Estate	1.9%	2.0%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.9%

Return for Risk

DECT vs. JULJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

DECT

DECT Risk / Return Rank: 78
DECT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
DECT Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
DECT Omega Ratio Rank: 81
DECT Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
DECT Martin Ratio Rank: 83

JULJ

JULJ Risk / Return Rank: 96
JULJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
JULJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
JULJ Omega Ratio Rank: 97
JULJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
JULJ Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

DECT vs. JULJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Dec ETF (DECT) and Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July (JULJ). 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.

	DECT	JULJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.45	3.62	-1.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.48	6.05	-2.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.88	-0.40
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.48	9.21	-5.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.66	47.78	-31.12
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DECT vs. JULJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DECT Sharpe Ratio is 2.45, which is lower than the JULJ Sharpe Ratio of 3.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DECT and JULJ, 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

	DECT	JULJ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.45	3.62	-1.17
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.36	1.96	-0.60

Drawdowns

DECT vs. JULJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DECT drawdown since its inception was -13.26%, which is greater than JULJ's maximum drawdown of -3.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DECT and JULJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	DECT	JULJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.26%	-3.62%	-9.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.11%	-0.61%	-5.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.26%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.28%	-0.02%	-0.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.42%	-0.10%	-1.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.27%	0.12%	+1.15%

Volatility

DECT vs. JULJ - Volatility Comparison

Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Dec ETF (DECT) has a higher volatility of 1.65% compared to Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July (JULJ) at 0.17%. This indicates that DECT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than JULJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DECT	JULJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.65%	0.17%	+1.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.34%	0.94%	+5.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.68%	1.54%	+7.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.23%	3.08%	+7.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.23%	3.08%	+7.15%

DECT vs. JULJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

DECT has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than JULJ's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

DECT vs. JULJ - Dividend Comparison

DECT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while JULJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.66%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
DECT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Dec ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.43%	0.00%
JULJ Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July	5.66%	5.76%	5.96%	3.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DECT and JULJ in my portfolio?

DECT and JULJ have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DECT or JULJ?

DECT has higher volatility (1.65%) compared to JULJ (0.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DECT dropped -13.26% vs JULJ's -3.62%.

Which ETF is better, DECT or JULJ?

On 1-year performance, DECT leads with 21.15% vs 5.56% for JULJ. On fees, DECT is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, JULJ has been the lower-risk option at 0.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DECT or JULJ?

Over the 1-year period, DECT has performed better with a 21.15% return vs 5.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DECT or JULJ?

DECT is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for JULJ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, DECT or JULJ?

JULJ has the higher dividend yield at 5.66%, compared with 0.00% for DECT.

What is the main difference between DECT and JULJ?

They also come from different issuers: Allianz and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for DECT and 0.79% for JULJ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JULJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.62 vs 2.45), 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.