Skip to content

FAUG vs ZALT

FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - August

FAUGCCboe

Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

ZALTACboe

Overlap

Expense ratio

ZALT −0.16pt a year

FAUG0.85%ZALT0.69%

Avg volume · 30D

ZALT 2.3×the volume

FAUG61.4KZALT138K

3Y return · a year

FAUG +5.2pt

FAUG+15.8%ZALT+10.6%

FAUG vs ZALT Performance

Oct 31, 2025 – Oct 30, 2026

+9.5%FAUG+7.1%ZALT

Oct 31, 2025 to Oct 30, 2026. FAUG +9.5%. ZALT +7.1%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.−2.5%0%2.5%5%12.5%Oct 2025Apr 2026Oct 2026
Expense ratio
FAUG 0.85%
ZALT 0.69%, better
Fund size
FAUG $1.44B
ZALT $840M
1Y total return
FAUG +9.5%, better
ZALT +7.1%
Holdings
FAUG 3
ZALT 503
Avg volume (30D)
FAUG 61.4K sh
ZALT 138K sh, better
NAV per share
FAUG $57.38
ZALT $34.50
52W range

ETF.net Grade

FAUG: Cost 11, Risk 53, Mission 95, Tradability 94, Holdings 53, Durability 91. ZALT: Cost 82, Risk 79, Mission 80, Tradability 65, Holdings 90, Durability 61.
Pillar letters and Scores for FAUG, ZALT, with each pillar’s weight
PillarFAUGZALT
Cost30% weightF11A82Higher
Mission25% weightA95HigherA80
Risk15% weightC53A79Higher
Tradability15% weightA94HigherB65
Holdings10% weightC53A90Higher
Durability5% weightA91HigherB61

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. FAUG 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 FAUG 42nd 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 42CBDECInnovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETFScore 47
  4. Rank 42CFAUGFT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - AugustScore 47
  5. Rank 44CDECZTrueShares Structured Outcome (December) ETFScore 46

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

FAUGCFT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - August

ZALTAInnovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

In short

FAUG First Trust's August-reset buffer fund absorbs the first 10% of a one-year price decline in the S&P 500 tracker it follows, and caps your upside in exchange. Running since 2019, an early arrival in what is now a crowded category.

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

FAUG The Fund seeks to match the price return of the State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, before fees and expenses, up to a predetermined cap while buffering the first 10% of the underlying ETF's losses during the stated outcome period.

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

  • FAUG The trade is spelled out: first 10% of the reference ETF's price loss absorbed, upside stopped at a cap, dividends left out, clock reset every August.
  • One slot in a full twelve-fund calendar (FJAN through FDEC), so an investor can enter on the August cycle or spread entries across reset months.
  • Live since 2019 and reset every August since, so the mechanics have run through real markets rather than model assumptions.
  • 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

  • FAUG At 0.85% a year it sits at the pricier end of the buffer shelf: ZALT runs 0.69% and the laddered BUFB 0.10% for related takes on the same idea.
  • Buffer and cap are set for the whole outcome period. Buy mid-period and you inherit whatever cushion and headroom remain, not the headline terms.
  • Trades lightly next to the category's busiest names, so spreads can be part of the entry cost.
  • 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 FAUG profile⁠

Full ZALT profile⁠

FAUG 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.

FAUG vs ZALT Cost

Overpaying FAUG vs ZALT

$2,770

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

  • FAUG 0.85%

    $16,199

  • ZALT 0.69%

    $13,429

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • FAUG 0.85%
  • 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$20K051015202530FAUG $16,199ZALT $13,429

Year by year

YearFAUGZALTOverpaying
10$1,508$1,232$276
20$5,706$4,697$1,009
30$16,199$13,429$2,770

Expense ratio

  • 0.85%FAUG
  • 0.69%ZALT, cheaper
  • Middle half of S&P 500 Buffer 9-12% funds
  • Median 0.79%

ZALT 14th cheapest of 77 funds

FAUG 60th cheapest of 77 funds

FAUG vs ZALT Dividends

Last 12 months to Oct 30, 2026
Payout (12M)
FAUG None
ZALT None

Distribution history

FAUGAll FAUG payments⁠

No distribution history available.

ZALTAll ZALT payments⁠

No distribution history available.

FAUG vs ZALT Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
FAUG 7.3%ZALT 3.8%, better
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
FAUG 1.45ZALT 1.50, better
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
FAUG −15.9%ZALT −8.2%since Oct 2023
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
FAUG 0.63ZALT 0.29

FAUG and ZALT in the news

Popular comparisons

  • FAUGCvsAUGPB

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

    Expense ratio
    0.85% · 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.
  • FAUGCvsTENJB

    FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - August · iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Jun ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.85% · 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.
  • FAUGCvsSIXJB

    FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - August · AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 Jan/Jul ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.85% · 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.