JULH vs VTI
Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - July vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, JULH or VTI?
Multi Alternative against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | JULH | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $17M | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 4.71% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 18 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +1.36% | +12.57%Best |
| 1Y Return | +1.23% | +17.22%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +5.37% | +20.87%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +11.86% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 2.4%Best | 13.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -14.5%Best | -19.3% |
| $10,000 over 3.2 years | $10,190 | $17,741Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 3, 2023 | May 24, 2001 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 3, 2023 to Sep 11, 2026 (3.2 years).
JULH vs VTI growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 3.2 years both funds cover.
JULH vs VTI Performance
Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - July (JULH) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year JULH returned +1.23% while VTI returned +17.22%. Year to date, JULH is up 1.36% versus a gain of 12.57% for VTI.
Over three years, JULH compounded at +5.37% per year against +20.87% for VTI.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13.2% compared with 2.4% for JULH. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -14.5% for JULH and -19.3% for VTI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.68. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
JULH charges 0.79% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $3 annually, a gap of $76 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, JULH currently yields 4.71% against 1.03% for VTI.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of JULH and VTI you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, JULH or VTI?
JULH has an expense ratio of 0.79% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $76 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, JULH or VTI?
Over the past year JULH returned +1.23% vs +17.22% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, JULH or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 13.2% annualized versus 2.4% for JULH. Worst drawdown: JULH -14.5% vs VTI -19.3%.
Should I hold both JULH and VTI?
JULH and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.68, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, JULH or VTI?
JULH yields 4.71% while VTI yields 1.03%, so JULH currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than JULH?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.