MAYT vs. JULJ

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MAYT (AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 May ETF) and JULJ (Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MAYT returned 14.80% vs 5.54% for JULJ. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MAYT charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for JULJ.

Performance

MAYT vs. JULJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 May ETF (MAYT) 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, MAYT achieves a 5.91% return, which is significantly higher than JULJ's 1.84% return.

MAYT

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: 2.54%
• YTD: 5.91%
• 6M: 6.80%
• 1Y: 14.80%
• 3Y*: 15.30%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

JULJ

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

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

MAYT vs. JULJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MAYT AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 May ETF	5.91%	11.29%	18.36%	6.52%
JULJ Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July	1.84%	5.91%	6.17%	3.54%

Correlation

The correlation between MAYT and JULJ is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 5, 2023	0.70

The correlation between MAYT and JULJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

MAYT vs. JULJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MAYT	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

MAYT vs. JULJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

MAYT

MAYT Risk / Return Rank: 93
MAYT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
MAYT Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
MAYT Omega Ratio Rank: 94
MAYT Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
MAYT Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

MAYT vs. JULJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 May ETF (MAYT) 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.

	MAYT	JULJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.01	3.61	-0.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.61	6.02	-1.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.67	1.87	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.63	9.17	-3.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	34.03	47.60	-13.57
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MAYT vs. JULJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MAYT Sharpe Ratio is 3.01, which is comparable to the JULJ Sharpe Ratio of 3.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MAYT 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

	MAYT	JULJ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.01	3.61	-0.60
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.71	1.96	-0.25

Drawdowns

MAYT vs. JULJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MAYT drawdown since its inception was -11.99%, which is greater than JULJ's maximum drawdown of -3.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MAYT and JULJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	MAYT	JULJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.99%	-3.62%	-8.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.64%	-0.61%	-2.03%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.08%	0.00%	-0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.81%	-0.10%	-0.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.44%	0.12%	+0.32%

Volatility

MAYT vs. JULJ - Volatility Comparison

AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 May ETF (MAYT) has a higher volatility of 1.48% compared to Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July (JULJ) at 0.17%. This indicates that MAYT'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

	MAYT	JULJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.48%	0.17%	+1.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.79%	0.94%	+2.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.94%	1.54%	+3.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.11%	3.08%	+6.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.11%	3.08%	+6.03%

MAYT vs. JULJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

MAYT vs. JULJ - Dividend Comparison

MAYT 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
JULJ Innovator Premium Income 30 Barrier ETF - July	5.66%	5.76%	5.96%	3.21%
MAYT AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 May ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MAYT and JULJ in my portfolio?

MAYT and JULJ have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MAYT or JULJ?

MAYT has higher volatility (1.48%) compared to JULJ (0.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MAYT dropped -11.99% vs JULJ's -3.62%.

Which ETF is better, MAYT or JULJ?

On 1-year performance, MAYT leads with 14.80% vs 5.54% for JULJ. On fees, MAYT 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, MAYT or JULJ?

Over the 1-year period, MAYT has performed better with a 14.80% return vs 5.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MAYT or JULJ?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between MAYT and JULJ?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JULJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.61 vs 3.01), 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.