JULJ vs. BUFG

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

JULJ (Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July) and BUFG (FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, JULJ returned 5.54% vs 17.83% for BUFG. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. JULJ charges 0.79%/yr vs 1.05%/yr for BUFG.

Performance

JULJ vs. BUFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July (JULJ) and FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JULJ achieves a 1.84% return, which is significantly lower than BUFG's 6.72% return.

JULJ

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.26%
• YTD: 1.84%
• 6M: 2.34%
• 1Y: 5.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BUFG

• 1D: 0.31%
• 1M: 2.26%
• YTD: 6.72%
• 6M: 7.23%
• 1Y: 17.83%
• 3Y*: 14.35%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

JULJ vs. BUFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
JULJ Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July	1.84%	5.91%	6.17%	3.54%
BUFG FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF	6.72%	12.33%	15.13%	5.15%

Correlation

The correlation between JULJ and BUFG is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 5, 2023	0.67

The correlation between JULJ and BUFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

JULJ vs. BUFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

JULJ vs. BUFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

BUFG

BUFG Risk / Return Rank: 75
BUFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
BUFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
BUFG Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BUFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
BUFG Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

JULJ vs. BUFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July (JULJ) and FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG). 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.

	JULJ	BUFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.61	2.35	+1.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	6.02	3.40	+2.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.87	1.46	+0.42
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.17	3.12	+6.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	47.60	16.44	+31.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

JULJ vs. BUFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JULJ Sharpe Ratio is 3.61, which is higher than the BUFG Sharpe Ratio of 2.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JULJ and BUFG, 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

	JULJ	BUFG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.61	2.35	+1.26
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.96	0.74	+1.22

Drawdowns

JULJ vs. BUFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JULJ drawdown since its inception was -3.62%, smaller than the maximum BUFG drawdown of -17.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JULJ and BUFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	JULJ	BUFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.62%	-17.62%	+14.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.61%	-5.74%	+5.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.20%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.10%	-3.61%	+3.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.12%	1.09%	-0.97%

Volatility

JULJ vs. BUFG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July (JULJ) is 0.17%, while FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG) has a volatility of 1.18%. This indicates that JULJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JULJ	BUFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.17%	1.18%	-1.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.94%	5.83%	-4.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.54%	7.63%	-6.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.08%	11.84%	-8.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.08%	11.84%	-8.76%

JULJ vs. BUFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

JULJ has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFG's 1.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

JULJ vs. BUFG - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BUFG FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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 JULJ and BUFG in my portfolio?

JULJ and BUFG have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JULJ or BUFG?

BUFG has higher volatility (1.18%) compared to JULJ (0.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JULJ dropped -3.62% vs BUFG's -17.62%.

Which ETF is better, JULJ or BUFG?

On 1-year performance, BUFG leads with 17.83% vs 5.54% for JULJ. On fees, JULJ is cheaper at 0.79% 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, JULJ or BUFG?

Over the 1-year period, BUFG has performed better with a 17.83% return vs 5.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JULJ or BUFG?

JULJ is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for BUFG.

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

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

What is the main difference between JULJ and BUFG?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for JULJ and 1.05% for BUFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JULJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.61 vs 2.35), 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.