Skip to content

BAPR vs ZALT

Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF

BAPRCCboe

Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

ZALTACboe

Overlap

Expense ratio

ZALT −0.10pt a year

BAPR0.79%ZALT0.69%

Avg volume · 30D

ZALT 17.7×the volume

BAPR7.82KZALT138K

3Y return · a year

BAPR +5.7pt

BAPR+15.7%ZALT+10.0%

BAPR vs ZALT Performance

Oct 31, 2025 – Nov 2, 2026

+15.3%BAPR+6.9%ZALT

Oct 31, 2025 to Nov 2, 2026. BAPR +15.3%. ZALT +6.9%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.0%10%Oct 2025May 2026Nov 2026
Expense ratio
BAPR 0.79%
ZALT 0.69%, better
Fund size
BAPR $414M
ZALT $840M
1Y total return
BAPR +15.3%, better
ZALT +6.9%
Holdings
BAPR 3
ZALT 503
Avg volume (30D)
BAPR 7.82K sh
ZALT 138K sh, better
NAV per share
BAPR $54.64
ZALT $34.50
52W range

ETF.net Grade

BAPR: Cost 40, Risk 59, Mission not scored, Tradability 60, Holdings not scored, Durability 82. ZALT: Cost 82, Risk 79, Mission 80, Tradability 65, Holdings 90, Durability 61.
Pillar letters and Scores for BAPR, ZALT, with each pillar’s weight
PillarBAPRZALT
Cost30% weightC40A82Higher
Mission25% weightNot scoredA80
Risk15% weightB59A79Higher
Tradability15% weightB60B65Higher
Holdings10% weightNot scoredA90
Durability5% weightA82HigherB61

Rank among S&P 500 Buffer 9-12% funds

Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Same Category. BAPR and ZALT are both graded against the same 77 S&P 500 Buffer 9-12% funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

S&P 500 Buffer 9-12%⁠

Category · 77 funds
See all 77 ›

ZALT ranks 1st and BAPR 33rd of 77 funds in the S&P 500 Buffer 9-12% Category.

  1. Rank 1AZALTInnovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - QuarterlyScore 77
  2. Rank 2BAUGPPGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - AugustScore 67
  3. Rank 33CAUGTAllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer10 Aug ETFScore 52
  4. Rank 33CBAPRInnovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETFScore 52
  5. Rank 33CBMARInnovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETFScore 52

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

BAPRCInnovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF

ZALTAInnovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

In short

BAPR Buffered S&P 500 exposure on an April clock. FLEX options absorb the first 9% of a drawdown over each roughly one-year period, and the trade-off is a ceiling on the upside. Live since 2019, resetting every April 1.

ZALT The defined-outcome trade on a three-month clock: ZALT follows SPY up to a cap and buffers the first 10% of a decline, then resets both every quarter. Four fresh caps a year, at a fee under the shallow-buffer median.

Stated mandate

BAPR The Fund seeks to replicate the performance of an ETF tracking the S&P 500 over the current approximately one-year Outcome Period, subject to a cap, while buffering the first 9% of losses. It uses FLEX Options referencing the Underlying ETF.

ZALT The fund seeks to follow SPY's return up to a predetermined cap while providing a 10% downside buffer over each three-month outcome period. It may be held indefinitely, with the defined outcomes resetting at the end of each period.

Why people hold it

  • BAPR The first 9% of an S&P 500 decline is absorbed over each roughly one-year outcome period, built from FLEX options on SPY inside a 1940 Act fund rather than a bank note.
  • Clean annual reset: each April 1 starts a new twelve-month period with a fresh 9% buffer and a fresh cap, no rolling or rebalancing on your end.
  • Trading since April 2019, so the April vintage has already run through multiple full outcome periods, including live market stress.
  • ZALT Resets on a quarterly clock: a new cap is set the first day of each calendar quarter and the 10% buffer starts over. Can be held indefinitely, no rolling into a new ticker.sec.govcboe.com
  • At 0.69% it undercuts the going rate for 10% buffer funds on the S&P 500, where peers like SIXZ, JULT and BJUN charge 0.74% to 0.79%.
  • The cushion is built from FLEX options on SPY itself, so the thing you are hedged against is the same fund most investors already watch.sec.gov
  • Sits among the stronger implementations in its shallow-buffer peer group on cost and ease of trading.

Worth knowing

  • BAPR The upside is capped. In a strong S&P 500 year the fund is designed to stop participating once the period's cap is reached.
  • Buffer and cap are measured from the April 1 start. Buy mid-period and the protection left and the room above you differ from the headline terms.
  • 0.79% a year, above cheaper buffered peers such as SWAN and DMAX. It is also one of the lighter-volume buffer funds and has not been paying distributions.
  • ZALT Three months of upside buys a lower ceiling. Each quarter's cap is priced off three-month options, so it lands well below what a 12-month buffer fund can offer.sec.gov
  • Buy mid-quarter and you inherit whatever cap and buffer are left, not the full 10%. The prospectus says so plainly.sec.gov
  • The fee comes out of the cushion: with the 0.69% fee counted, the prospectus puts the net buffer at 9.82% per period. No distributions so far, so return shows up in price.sec.gov

Full BAPR profile⁠

Full ZALT profile⁠

BAPR vs ZALT Holdings

How we measure overlap

Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.

BAPR vs ZALT Cost

Overpaying BAPR vs ZALT

$1,745

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

  • BAPR 0.79%

    $15,174

  • ZALT 0.69%

    $13,429

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • BAPR 0.79%
  • ZALT 0.69%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$5K$10K$15K$20K051015202530BAPR $15,174ZALT $13,429

Year by year

YearBAPRZALTOverpaying
10$1,405$1,232$173
20$5,331$4,697$634
30$15,174$13,429$1,745

Expense ratio

  • 0.79%BAPR
  • 0.69%ZALT, cheaper
  • Middle half of S&P 500 Buffer 9-12% funds
  • Median 0.79%

ZALT 14th cheapest of 77 funds

BAPR 34th cheapest of 77 funds

BAPR vs ZALT Dividends

Last 12 months to Nov 2, 2026
Payout (12M)
BAPR None
ZALT None

Distribution history

BAPRAll BAPR payments⁠

No distribution history available.

ZALTAll ZALT payments⁠

No distribution history available.

BAPR vs ZALT Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
BAPR 7.9%ZALT 3.8%, better
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
BAPR 1.44ZALT 1.50, better
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
BAPR −15.6%ZALT −8.2%since Oct 2023
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
BAPR 0.64ZALT 0.29

BAPR and ZALT in the news

Popular comparisons

  • BAPRCvsAUGPB

    Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF · PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - August

    Expense ratio
    0.79% · 0.50%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • ZALTAvsAUGPB

    Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly · PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - August

    Expense ratio
    0.69% · 0.50%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • BAPRCvsTENJB

    Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF · iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Jun ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.79% · 0.53%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • ZALTAvsTENJB

    Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly · iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Jun ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.69% · 0.53%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • BAPRCvsSIXJB

    Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF · AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 Jan/Jul ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.79% · 0.74%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • ZALTAvsSIXJB

    Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly · AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 Jan/Jul ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.69% · 0.74%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.