PSCJ vs. EAPR

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

PSCJ (Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (July) ETF) and EAPR (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds - PSCJ tracks the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust while EAPR tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, PSCJ returned 9.16%/yr vs 5.30%/yr for EAPR. Their 0.57 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. PSCJ charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EAPR.

Performance

PSCJ vs. EAPR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (July) ETF (PSCJ) 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, PSCJ achieves a 6.26% return, which is significantly lower than EAPR's 9.39% return.

PSCJ

• 1D: 0.62%
• 1M: 1.13%
• 6M: 5.60%
• YTD: 6.26%
• 1Y: 12.17%
• 3Y*: 13.02%
• 5Y*: 9.16%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 9.09%

EAPR

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: 0.52%
• 6M: 8.39%
• YTD: 9.39%
• 1Y: 15.98%
• 3Y*: 9.08%
• 5Y*: 5.30%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.87%

*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	$350.08K	$258.47K	$463.39K
PSCJ Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (July) ETF	$14.40K	$18.59K	$12.91K

PSCJ vs. EAPR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
PSCJ Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (July) ETF	6.26%	12.80%	14.74%	18.48%	-7.48%	3.29%
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	9.39%	14.80%	2.86%	8.19%	-5.01%	-4.56%

Correlation

The correlation between PSCJ and EAPR is 0.55, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.55
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.54
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2021	0.57

The correlation between PSCJ and EAPR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

PSCJ vs. EAPR — Risk / Return Rank

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

PSCJ

PSCJ Risk / Return Rank: 88
PSCJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
PSCJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
PSCJ Omega Ratio Rank: 93
PSCJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
PSCJ Martin Ratio Rank: 91

EAPR

EAPR Risk / Return Rank: 78
EAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
EAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
EAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 88
EAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
EAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

PSCJ vs. EAPR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (July) ETF (PSCJ) 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.

	PSCJ	EAPR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.30	1.67	+0.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.47	2.44	+1.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.41	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.94	3.04	-0.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.17	12.81	+3.36

PSCJ vs. EAPR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PSCJ Sharpe Ratio is 2.30, which is higher than the EAPR Sharpe Ratio of 1.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PSCJ 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

PSCJ vs. EAPR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PSCJ drawdown since its inception was -11.87%, smaller than the maximum EAPR drawdown of -17.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PSCJ and EAPR.

Drawdown Indicators

	PSCJ	EAPR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.87%	-17.65%	+5.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.16%	-5.28%	+1.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.87%	-10.24%	-1.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-11.87%	-16.34%	+4.47%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-2.58%	+2.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.13%	-4.02%	+1.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.75%	1.25%	-0.50%

Volatility

PSCJ vs. EAPR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (July) ETF (PSCJ) is 2.04%, while Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) has a volatility of 4.37%. This indicates that PSCJ 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

	PSCJ	EAPR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.04%	4.37%	-2.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.31%	9.26%	-4.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.32%	9.64%	-4.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.68%	10.41%	-1.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.63%	10.29%	-1.66%

PSCJ vs. EAPR - Expense Ratio Comparison

PSCJ has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is lower than EAPR's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

PSCJ vs. EAPR - Dividend Comparison

Neither PSCJ nor EAPR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PSCJ and EAPR in my portfolio?

PSCJ and EAPR have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PSCJ or EAPR?

EAPR has higher volatility (4.37%) compared to PSCJ (2.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PSCJ dropped -11.87% vs EAPR's -17.65%.

Which ETF is better, PSCJ or EAPR?

On 5-year performance, PSCJ leads with 9.16% vs 5.30% for EAPR. On fees, PSCJ is cheaper at 0.61% per year. On volatility, PSCJ has been the lower-risk option at 2.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PSCJ or EAPR?

Over the 5-year period, PSCJ has performed better with a 9.16% return vs 5.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PSCJ or EAPR?

PSCJ is cheaper with a 0.61% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for EAPR.

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

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

What is the main difference between PSCJ and EAPR?

PSCJ tracks SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, while EAPR tracks MSCI Emerging Markets. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for PSCJ and 0.89% for EAPR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PSCJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.30 vs 1.67), 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.