JULH vs. RSBY

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

JULH (Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - July) and RSBY (Return Stacked Bonds & Futures Yield ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - JULH is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Innovator, while RSBY is a Multistrategy fund actively managed by Return Stacked. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, JULH returned 5.07% vs 20.17% for RSBY. At a correlation of -0.16, they often move in opposite directions. JULH charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.98%/yr for RSBY.

Performance

JULH vs. RSBY - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - July (JULH) and Return Stacked Bonds & Futures Yield ETF (RSBY). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JULH achieves a 2.22% return, which is significantly lower than RSBY's 19.04% return.

JULH

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 0.32%
• YTD: 2.22%
• 6M: 1.10%
• 1Y: 5.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RSBY

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: -1.29%
• YTD: 19.04%
• 6M: 15.93%
• 1Y: 20.17%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

JULH vs. RSBY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
JULH Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - July	2.22%	5.39%	2.59%
RSBY Return Stacked Bonds & Futures Yield ETF	19.04%	-12.98%	-7.90%

Correlation

The correlation between JULH and RSBY is -0.19, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.19
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 22, 2024	-0.16

JULH vs. RSBY - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	JULH	RSBY
Technology	33.6%	53.7%
Financial Services	12.4%	0.2%
Communication Services	10.5%	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	12.2%
Healthcare	9.5%	4.2%
Industrials	8.5%	3.1%
Consumer Defensive	5.3%	7.7%
Energy	4.0%	0.6%
Utilities	2.5%	1.4%
Real Estate	2.0%	0.1%
Basic Materials	1.9%	1.1%

Return for Risk

JULH vs. RSBY — Risk / Return Rank

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

JULH

JULH Risk / Return Rank: 61
JULH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
JULH Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
JULH Omega Ratio Rank: 83
JULH Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
JULH Martin Ratio Rank: 48

RSBY

RSBY Risk / Return Rank: 51
RSBY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
RSBY Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
RSBY Omega Ratio Rank: 51
RSBY Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
RSBY Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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.

JULH vs. RSBY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - July (JULH) and Return Stacked Bonds & Futures Yield ETF (RSBY). 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.

	JULH	RSBY	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.82	1.72	+0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.32	2.51	-0.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.30	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.95	2.55	+0.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.48	5.96	+1.52
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

JULH vs. RSBY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JULH Sharpe Ratio is 1.82, which is comparable to the RSBY Sharpe Ratio of 1.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JULH and RSBY, 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

	JULH	RSBY	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.82	1.72	+0.10
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.38	-0.19	+1.57

Drawdowns

JULH vs. RSBY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JULH drawdown since its inception was -5.51%, smaller than the maximum RSBY drawdown of -23.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JULH and RSBY.

Drawdown Indicators

	JULH	RSBY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.51%	-23.32%	+17.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.72%	-7.95%	+6.23%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-6.04%	+6.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.28%	-13.76%	+13.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.68%	3.40%	-2.72%

Volatility

JULH vs. RSBY - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - July (JULH) is 0.14%, while Return Stacked Bonds & Futures Yield ETF (RSBY) has a volatility of 1.93%. This indicates that JULH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RSBY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JULH	RSBY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.14%	1.93%	-1.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.25%	8.51%	-6.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.80%	11.78%	-8.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.75%	13.53%	-8.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.75%	13.53%	-8.78%

JULH vs. RSBY - Expense Ratio Comparison

JULH has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than RSBY's 0.98% expense ratio.

Dividends

JULH vs. RSBY - Dividend Comparison

JULH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.28%, more than RSBY's 1.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
JULH Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - July	5.28%	5.31%	6.89%	3.67%
RSBY Return Stacked Bonds & Futures Yield ETF	1.74%	2.07%	2.29%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JULH and RSBY in my portfolio?

JULH and RSBY have a correlation of -0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JULH or RSBY?

RSBY has higher volatility (1.93%) compared to JULH (0.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JULH dropped -5.51% vs RSBY's -23.32%.

Which ETF is better, JULH or RSBY?

On 1-year performance, RSBY leads with 20.17% vs 5.07% for JULH. On fees, JULH is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, JULH has been the lower-risk option at 0.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JULH or RSBY?

Over the 1-year period, RSBY has performed better with a 20.17% return vs 5.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JULH or RSBY?

JULH is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.98% for RSBY.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, JULH or RSBY?

JULH has the higher dividend yield at 5.28%, compared with 1.74% for RSBY.

What is the main difference between JULH and RSBY?

JULH is categorized as Options Trading, while RSBY is Multistrategy. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Return Stacked. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for JULH and 0.98% for RSBY.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JULH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.82 vs 1.72), 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.