EJAN vs. KONG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

EJAN (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF January) and KONG (Formidable Fortress ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EJAN is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, while KONG is a Equity Hedged fund actively managed by Formidable. EJAN is passively managed, while KONG is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, EJAN returned 3.53%/yr vs 3.91%/yr for KONG. Their 0.48 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. Both charge a 0.89% expense ratio.

Performance

EJAN vs. KONG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF January (EJAN) and Formidable Fortress ETF (KONG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EJAN achieves a 6.14% return, which is significantly higher than KONG's 4.41% return.

EJAN

• 1D: 0.42%
• 1M: 0.75%
• 6M: 3.18%
• YTD: 6.14%
• 1Y: 11.50%
• 3Y*: 6.90%
• 5Y*: 3.53%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.32%

KONG

• 1D: 1.20%
• 1M: 1.10%
• 6M: 3.01%
• YTD: 4.41%
• 1Y: 6.66%
• 3Y*: 8.45%
• 5Y*: 3.91%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.47%

*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)
EJAN Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF January	$267.44K	$193.23K	$472.80K
KONG Formidable Fortress ETF	$14.31K	$9.16K	$24.80K

EJAN vs. KONG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EJAN Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF January	6.14%	14.78%	2.69%	5.37%	-8.01%	-3.55%
KONG Formidable Fortress ETF	4.41%	6.56%	9.67%	12.71%	-9.63%	5.15%

Correlation

The correlation between EJAN and KONG is 0.40, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.40
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.43
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 22, 2021	0.48

EJAN vs. KONG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EJAN	KONG
Technology	45.2%	31.3%
Financial Services	18.5%	7.7%
Consumer Cyclical	7.5%	2.8%
Industrials	6.3%	14.4%
Communication Services	6.0%	7.3%
Basic Materials	5.5%	4.7%
Energy	3.2%	5.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	2.1%
Healthcare	2.5%	13.1%
Utilities	1.8%	2.4%
Real Estate	1.0%	5.7%

Return for Risk

EJAN vs. KONG — Risk / Return Rank

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

EJAN

EJAN Risk / Return Rank: 56
EJAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
EJAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
EJAN Omega Ratio Rank: 67
EJAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
EJAN Martin Ratio Rank: 61

KONG

KONG Risk / Return Rank: 25
KONG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
KONG Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
KONG Omega Ratio Rank: 23
KONG Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
KONG Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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.

EJAN vs. KONG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF January (EJAN) and Formidable Fortress ETF (KONG). 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.

	EJAN	KONG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.30	0.56	+0.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.87	0.85	+1.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.10	+0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.69	0.73	+0.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.40	2.73	+4.68

EJAN vs. KONG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EJAN Sharpe Ratio is 1.30, which is higher than the KONG Sharpe Ratio of 0.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EJAN and KONG, 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

EJAN vs. KONG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EJAN drawdown since its inception was -22.23%, which is greater than KONG's maximum drawdown of -19.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EJAN and KONG.

Drawdown Indicators

	EJAN	KONG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.23%	-19.98%	-2.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.63%	-8.54%	+1.91%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.75%	-15.48%	+3.73%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.84%	-18.34%	-2.50%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.80%	0.00%	-0.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.67%	-5.68%	+0.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.51%	2.28%	-0.77%

Volatility

EJAN vs. KONG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF January (EJAN) is 2.75%, while Formidable Fortress ETF (KONG) has a volatility of 3.27%. This indicates that EJAN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than KONG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EJAN	KONG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.75%	3.27%	-0.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.21%	8.96%	-0.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.64%	11.14%	-2.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.15%	14.19%	-3.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.63%	14.50%	-1.87%

EJAN vs. KONG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both EJAN and KONG have an expense ratio of 0.89%.

Dividends

EJAN vs. KONG - Dividend Comparison

EJAN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while KONG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EJAN Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF January	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
KONG Formidable Fortress ETF	0.35%	0.37%	0.78%	0.69%	0.49%	0.12%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EJAN and KONG in my portfolio?

EJAN and KONG have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EJAN or KONG?

KONG has higher volatility (3.27%) compared to EJAN (2.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EJAN dropped -22.23% vs KONG's -19.98%.

Which ETF is better, EJAN or KONG?

On 5-year performance, KONG leads with 3.91% vs 3.53% for EJAN. Both ETFs have the same 0.89% expense ratio. On volatility, EJAN has been the lower-risk option at 2.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EJAN or KONG?

Over the 5-year period, KONG has performed better with a 3.91% return vs 3.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EJAN or KONG?

EJAN and KONG have the same expense ratio: 0.89% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EJAN or KONG?

KONG has the higher dividend yield at 0.35%, compared with 0.00% for EJAN.

What is the main difference between EJAN and KONG?

EJAN is categorized as Defined Outcome, while KONG is Equity Hedged. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Formidable.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EJAN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.30 vs 0.56), 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.