TJUL vs VOO
Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 2 Yr to July 2027 vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, TJUL or VOO?
Multi Alternative against Large Cap Blend.
VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO 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 | TJUL | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $115M | $997.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 10 | 509 |
| YTD Return | +3.56% | +13.82%Best |
| 1Y Return | +4.91% | +18.56%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +7.94% | +23.49%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.34% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 3.4%Best | 12.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -4.6%Best | -18.7% |
| $10,000 over 3.2 years | $12,328 | $17,746Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 18, 2023 | Sep 7, 2010 |
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 18, 2023 to Sep 25, 2026 (3.2 years).
TJUL 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 3.2 years both funds cover.
TJUL vs VOO Performance
Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 2 Yr to July 2027 (TJUL) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year TJUL returned +4.91% while VOO returned +18.56%. Year to date, TJUL is up 3.56% versus a gain of 13.82% for VOO.
Over three years, TJUL compounded at +7.94% per year against +23.49% for VOO.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VOO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.7% compared with 3.4% for TJUL. 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 -4.6% for TJUL and -18.7% 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 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
TJUL 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, TJUL currently yields 0.00% against 1.04% for VOO.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of TJUL 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, TJUL or VOO?
TJUL 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, TJUL or VOO?
Over the past year TJUL returned +4.91% vs +18.56% for VOO, so VOO leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, TJUL or VOO?
VOO has been the more volatile fund at 12.7% annualized versus 3.4% for TJUL. Worst drawdown: TJUL -4.6% vs VOO -18.7%.
Should I hold both TJUL and VOO?
TJUL and VOO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, 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, TJUL or VOO?
TJUL yields 0.00% while VOO yields 1.04%, so VOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOO better than TJUL?
VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO 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.