KJUL vs. EAPR

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

KJUL (Innovator Russell 2000 Power Buffer ETF - July) and EAPR (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds from Innovator - KJUL tracks the iShares Russell 2000 ETF while EAPR tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, KJUL returned 5.16%/yr vs 5.46%/yr for EAPR. Their 0.55 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. KJUL charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EAPR.

Performance

KJUL vs. EAPR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Russell 2000 Power Buffer ETF - July (KJUL) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KJUL achieves a 5.90% return, which is significantly lower than EAPR's 9.17% return.

KJUL

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: -0.80%
• 6M: 3.94%
• YTD: 5.90%
• 1Y: 14.97%
• 3Y*: 8.31%
• 5Y*: 5.16%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.20%

EAPR

• 1D: 0.61%
• 1M: 0.32%
• 6M: 8.21%
• YTD: 9.17%
• 1Y: 15.75%
• 3Y*: 8.62%
• 5Y*: 5.46%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.84%

*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)
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	$354.30K	$262.28K	$462.78K
KJUL Innovator Russell 2000 Power Buffer ETF - July	$1.73M	$5.07M	$2.30M

KJUL vs. EAPR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
KJUL Innovator Russell 2000 Power Buffer ETF - July	5.90%	7.70%	8.69%	11.78%	-8.44%	0.08%
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	9.17%	14.80%	2.86%	8.19%	-5.01%	-2.89%

Correlation

The correlation between KJUL and EAPR is 0.49, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.49
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.52
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2021	0.55

The correlation between KJUL and EAPR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.49 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

KJUL vs. EAPR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KJUL	EAPR
Healthcare	20.3%	2.5%
Financial Services	17.6%	18.5%
Technology	14.5%	45.2%
Industrials	14.1%	6.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.2%	7.5%
Real Estate	6.7%	1.0%
Energy	5.5%	3.2%
Basic Materials	4.4%	5.5%
Utilities	2.8%	1.8%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	2.6%
Communication Services	2.2%	6.0%

Return for Risk

KJUL vs. EAPR — Risk / Return Rank

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

KJUL

KJUL Risk / Return Rank: 88
KJUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
KJUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
KJUL Omega Ratio Rank: 87
KJUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
KJUL Martin Ratio Rank: 92

EAPR

EAPR Risk / Return Rank: 79
EAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
EAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
EAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 87
EAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
EAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

KJUL vs. EAPR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Russell 2000 Power Buffer ETF - July (KJUL) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR). 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.

	KJUL	EAPR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.94	1.59	+0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.94	2.34	+0.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.39	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.13	2.90	+1.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.17	12.34	+3.83

KJUL vs. EAPR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KJUL Sharpe Ratio is 1.94, which is comparable to the EAPR Sharpe Ratio of 1.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KJUL and EAPR, 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

KJUL vs. EAPR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KJUL drawdown since its inception was -16.69%, smaller than the maximum EAPR drawdown of -17.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KJUL and EAPR.

Drawdown Indicators

	KJUL	EAPR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.69%	-17.65%	+0.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.42%	-5.28%	+1.86%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.45%	-10.24%	-4.21%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.69%	-16.34%	-0.35%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.18%	-2.78%	+1.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.91%	-4.02%	+0.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.87%	1.24%	-0.37%

Volatility

KJUL vs. EAPR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Russell 2000 Power Buffer ETF - July (KJUL) is 2.03%, while Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) has a volatility of 4.40%. This indicates that KJUL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EAPR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KJUL	EAPR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.03%	4.40%	-2.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.80%	9.26%	-4.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.32%	9.63%	-2.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.27%	10.41%	+1.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.55%	10.30%	+1.25%

KJUL vs. EAPR - Expense Ratio Comparison

KJUL has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than EAPR's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

KJUL vs. EAPR - Dividend Comparison

Neither KJUL nor EAPR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KJUL and EAPR in my portfolio?

KJUL and EAPR have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, KJUL or EAPR?

EAPR has higher volatility (4.40%) compared to KJUL (2.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KJUL dropped -16.69% vs EAPR's -17.65%.

Which ETF is better, KJUL or EAPR?

On 5-year performance, EAPR leads with 5.46% vs 5.16% for KJUL. On fees, KJUL is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, KJUL has been the lower-risk option at 2.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KJUL or EAPR?

Over the 5-year period, EAPR has performed better with a 5.46% return vs 5.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KJUL or EAPR?

KJUL is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for EAPR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, KJUL or EAPR?

KJUL and EAPR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between KJUL and EAPR?

KJUL tracks iShares Russell 2000 ETF, while EAPR tracks MSCI Emerging Markets. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for KJUL and 0.89% for EAPR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KJUL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.94 vs 1.59), 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.