FEBT vs. JULJ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FEBT (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF) and JULJ (Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FEBT returned 20.34% vs 5.56% for JULJ. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FEBT charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for JULJ.

Performance

FEBT vs. JULJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) 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, FEBT achieves a 7.90% return, which is significantly higher than JULJ's 1.82% return.

FEBT

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 2.78%
• YTD: 7.90%
• 6M: 8.78%
• 1Y: 20.34%
• 3Y*: 16.37%
• 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)

FEBT vs. JULJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	7.90%	12.72%	17.29%	7.22%
JULJ Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July	1.82%	5.91%	6.17%	3.54%

Correlation

The correlation between FEBT and JULJ is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 5, 2023	0.69

The correlation between FEBT and JULJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

FEBT vs. JULJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FEBT	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

FEBT vs. JULJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEBT

FEBT Risk / Return Rank: 81
FEBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
FEBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FEBT Omega Ratio Rank: 85
FEBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
FEBT Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

FEBT vs. JULJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) 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.

	FEBT	JULJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.67	3.62	-0.96
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.85	6.05	-2.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.88	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.38	9.21	-5.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.26	47.78	-30.52
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FEBT vs. JULJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBT Sharpe Ratio is 2.67, which is comparable to the JULJ Sharpe Ratio of 3.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBT 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

	FEBT	JULJ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.67	3.62	-0.96
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.64	1.96	-0.32

Drawdowns

FEBT vs. JULJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBT drawdown since its inception was -13.19%, which is greater than JULJ's maximum drawdown of -3.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBT and JULJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBT	JULJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.19%	-3.62%	-9.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.04%	-0.61%	-5.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.19%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.34%	-0.02%	-0.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.18%	-0.10%	-1.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.18%	0.12%	+1.06%

Volatility

FEBT vs. JULJ - Volatility Comparison

Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) has a higher volatility of 1.28% compared to Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July (JULJ) at 0.17%. This indicates that FEBT'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

	FEBT	JULJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.28%	0.17%	+1.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.98%	0.94%	+5.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.67%	1.54%	+6.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.75%	3.08%	+6.67%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.75%	3.08%	+6.67%

FEBT vs. JULJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FEBT vs. JULJ - Dividend Comparison

FEBT 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
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.28%	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 FEBT and JULJ in my portfolio?

FEBT and JULJ have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FEBT or JULJ?

FEBT has higher volatility (1.28%) compared to JULJ (0.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FEBT dropped -13.19% vs JULJ's -3.62%.

Which ETF is better, FEBT or JULJ?

On 1-year performance, FEBT leads with 20.34% vs 5.56% for JULJ. On fees, FEBT 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, FEBT or JULJ?

Over the 1-year period, FEBT has performed better with a 20.34% return vs 5.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEBT or JULJ?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between FEBT and JULJ?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JULJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.62 vs 2.67), 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.