Skip to content

FJUL vs ZALT

FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July

FJULCCboe

Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

ZALTACboe

Overlap

Expense ratio

ZALT −0.16pt a year

FJUL0.85%ZALT0.69%

Avg volume · 30D

ZALT 2.8×the volume

FJUL48.5KZALT138K

3Y return · a year

FJUL +6.7pt

FJUL+17.3%ZALT+10.6%

FJUL vs ZALT Performance

Oct 31, 2025 – Oct 30, 2026

+10.5%FJUL+7.1%ZALT

Oct 31, 2025 to Oct 30, 2026. FJUL +10.5%. 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
FJUL 0.85%
ZALT 0.69%, better
Fund size
FJUL $1.41B
ZALT $840M
1Y total return
FJUL +10.5%, better
ZALT +7.1%
Holdings
FJUL 3
ZALT 503
Avg volume (30D)
FJUL 48.5K sh
ZALT 138K sh, better
NAV per share
FJUL $60.97
ZALT $34.50
52W range

ETF.net Grade

FJUL: Cost 11, Risk 58, Mission not scored, Tradability 82, Holdings 65, Durability 85. ZALT: Cost 82, Risk 79, Mission 80, Tradability 65, Holdings 90, Durability 61.
Pillar letters and Scores for FJUL, ZALT, with each pillar’s weight
PillarFJULZALT
Cost30% weightF11A82Higher
Mission25% weightNot scoredA80
Risk15% weightB58A79Higher
Tradability15% weightA82HigherB65
Holdings10% weightB65A90Higher
Durability5% weightA85HigherB61

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. FJUL 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 FJUL 44th 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 44CFAPRFT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - AprilScore 46
  4. Rank 44CFJULFT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - JulyScore 46
  5. Rank 44CFMARFT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - MarchScore 46

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

FJULCFT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July

ZALTAInnovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

In short

FJUL The July rung of First Trust's twelve-month buffer ladder: 10% of SPY's price-return losses absorbed, upside capped, and the whole contract reset each July. Running since 2020.

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

FJUL The Fund seeks returns matching the price return of the State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust up to a 16.82% upside cap, while buffering the first 10% of losses during the July 20, 2026–July 16, 2027 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

  • FJUL The terms are written down before you show up: a 10% downside buffer on SPY's price return and a stated upside cap, both fixed for the July-to-July outcome period.ftportfolios.com
  • Twelve identical monthly siblings run on the same recipe (FJAN through FDEC), so start dates can be laddered instead of hinging on one July entry.
  • Live since 2020 and now a billion-dollar-plus fund, it is a seasoned rung of the ladder with many annual resets behind it.
  • 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

  • FJUL At 0.85% a year it sits above the buffer group's 0.79% median, and well above cheaper builds like ZALT (0.69%) or the laddered BUFB (0.10%).
  • The reference is SPY's price return, so dividends sit outside the buffered math, and the fund itself has made no distributions.
  • Buffer and cap are defined for the full July-to-July window; buy mid-period and your own cap and remaining buffer differ from the headline terms.ftportfolios.com
  • 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 FJUL profile⁠

Full ZALT profile⁠

FJUL 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.

FJUL vs ZALT Cost

Overpaying FJUL vs ZALT

$2,770

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

  • FJUL 0.85%

    $16,199

  • ZALT 0.69%

    $13,429

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • FJUL 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$20K051015202530FJUL $16,199ZALT $13,429

Year by year

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

Expense ratio

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

ZALT 14th cheapest of 77 funds

FJUL 60th cheapest of 77 funds

FJUL vs ZALT Dividends

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

Distribution history

FJULAll FJUL payments⁠

No distribution history available.

ZALTAll ZALT payments⁠

No distribution history available.

FJUL vs ZALT Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
FJUL 7.8%ZALT 3.8%, better
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
FJUL 1.53, betterZALT 1.50
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
FJUL −13.1%ZALT −8.2%since Oct 2023
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
FJUL 0.64ZALT 0.29

Popular comparisons

  • FJULCvsAUGPB

    FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July · 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.
  • FJULCvsTENJB

    FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July · 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.
  • FJULCvsSIXJB

    FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July · 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.