Skip to content

BDEC vs ZALT

Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF

BDECCCboe

Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

ZALTACboe

Overlap

Expense ratio

ZALT −0.10pt a year

BDEC0.79%ZALT0.69%

Avg volume · 30D

ZALT 20.7×the volume

BDEC6.53KZALT135K

3Y return · a year

BDEC +5.2pt

BDEC+15.2%ZALT+10.0%

BDEC vs ZALT Performance

Nov 7, 2025 – Nov 9, 2026

+11.8%BDEC+7.7%ZALT

Nov 7, 2025 to Nov 9, 2026. BDEC +11.8%. ZALT +7.7%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.0%5%15%Nov 2025May 2026Nov 2026
Expense ratio
BDEC 0.79%
ZALT 0.69%, better
Fund size
BDEC $206M
ZALT $835M
1Y total return
BDEC +11.8%, better
ZALT +7.7%
Holdings
BDEC 3
ZALT 503
Avg volume (30D)
BDEC 6.53K sh
ZALT 135K sh, better
NAV per share
BDEC $52.91
ZALT $34.14
52W range

ETF.net Grade

BDEC: Cost 40, Risk 37, Mission not scored, Tradability 59, Holdings not scored, Durability 69. ZALT: Cost 82, Risk 73, Mission 80, Tradability 65, Holdings 89, Durability 61.
Pillar letters and Scores for BDEC, ZALT, with each pillar’s weight
PillarBDECZALT
Cost30% weightC40A82Higher
Mission25% weightNot scoredA80
Risk15% weightD37A73Higher
Tradability15% weightB59B65Higher
Holdings10% weightNot scoredA89
Durability5% weightB69HigherB61

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. BDEC 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 BDEC 47th of 77 funds in the S&P 500 Buffer 9-12% Category.

  1. Rank 1AZALTInnovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - QuarterlyScore 76
  2. Rank 2BAUGPPGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - AugustScore 66
  3. Rank 43CFSEPFT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - SeptemberScore 46
  4. Rank 47CBDECInnovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETFScore 45
  5. Rank 47CFMAYFT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - MayScore 45

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

BDECCInnovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF

ZALTAInnovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

In short

BDEC Innovator invented the buffer ETF, and BDEC is the December door into that lineup: SPY's price moves with the first 9% of losses absorbed, the upside capped, and the whole deal reset every December 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

BDEC The Fund uses a defined-outcome strategy intended to replicate its underlying ETF over an approximately one-year period, subject to a capped upside and protection against the first 9% of losses.

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

  • BDEC The terms are written down before you commit: 9% of the reference ETF's price losses absorbed (before the 0.79% fee) over a roughly one-year period, with the new cap published each December 1.sec.gov
  • At 0.79% the fee sits at the category median, and it undercuts the dated buffer funds built on the same reference (FDEC, FJUL, FMAR and siblings at 0.85%).
  • One rung in a twelve-month series from the shop that listed the first defined-outcome ETFs in 2018. BDEC has been running its December reset since 2019.globenewswire.com
  • 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

  • BDEC Timing is the whole game. The buffer and cap are built for holders from the first day of the outcome period to the last; buy mid-period and your actual terms differ from the headline ones.sec.gov
  • You get SPY's price return, not its dividends: the fund's options don't collect them, so income isn't part of the design.sec.gov
  • Trading is thin for a fund of this size, so limit orders and a look at the spread earn their keep.
  • 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 BDEC profile⁠

Full ZALT profile⁠

BDEC 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.

BDEC vs ZALT Cost

Overpaying BDEC vs ZALT

$1,745

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

  • BDEC 0.79%

    $15,174

  • ZALT 0.69%

    $13,429

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • BDEC 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$20K051015202530BDEC $15,174ZALT $13,429

Year by year

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

Expense ratio

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

ZALT 14th cheapest of 77 funds

BDEC 34th cheapest of 77 funds

BDEC vs ZALT Dividends

Last 12 months to Nov 9, 2026
Payout (12M)
BDEC None
ZALT None

Distribution history

BDECAll BDEC payments⁠

No distribution history available.

ZALTAll ZALT payments⁠

No distribution history available.

BDEC vs ZALT Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
BDEC 8.6%ZALT 3.8%, better
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
BDEC 1.33ZALT 1.51, better
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
BDEC −16.4%ZALT −8.2%since Oct 2023
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
BDEC 0.72ZALT 0.29

Popular comparisons

  • BDECCvsAUGPB

    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.
  • BDECCvsSIXJB

    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.
  • BDECCvsJANPB

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

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

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

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