QTJA vs VOO
Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, QTJA or VOO?
Multi Alternative against Large Cap Blend.
VOO has a lower expense ratio. QTJA led over 1Y, VOO over 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 | QTJA | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $25M | $997.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 10 | 509 |
| YTD Return | +13.32%Best | +11.55% |
| 1Y Return | +18.28%Best | +17.54% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.64% | +20.71%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.80% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.1% | 15.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -36.1% | -24.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 4.7 years | $13,086 | $16,934Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 31, 2021 | Sep 7, 2010 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 3, 2022 to Sep 10, 2026 (4.7 years).
QTJA vs VOO 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 4.7 years both funds cover.
QTJA vs VOO Performance
Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January (QTJA) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year QTJA returned +18.28% while VOO returned +17.54%. Year to date, QTJA is up 13.32% versus a gain of 11.55% for VOO.
Over three years, QTJA compounded at +17.64% per year against +20.71% for VOO.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QTJA has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.1% compared with 15.6% for VOO. 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 -36.1% for QTJA and -24.5% for VOO. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.87. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QTJA charges 0.79% per year while VOO 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, QTJA currently yields 0.00% against 1.04% for VOO.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of QTJA and VOO 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, QTJA or VOO?
QTJA has an expense ratio of 0.79% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $76 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QTJA or VOO?
Over the past year QTJA returned +18.28% vs +17.54% for VOO, so QTJA leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QTJA or VOO?
QTJA has been the more volatile fund at 17.1% annualized versus 15.6% for VOO. Worst drawdown: QTJA -36.1% vs VOO -24.5%.
Should I hold both QTJA and VOO?
QTJA and VOO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.87, 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, QTJA or VOO?
QTJA yields 0.00% while VOO yields 1.04%, so VOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOO better than QTJA?
VOO has a lower expense ratio. QTJA led over 1Y, VOO over 3Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.