Skip to content

PJUN vs ZALT

Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - June

PJUNBCboe

Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

ZALTACboe

Overlap

Expense ratio

ZALT −0.10pt a year

PJUN0.79%ZALT0.69%

Avg volume · 30D

ZALT 2.6×the volume

PJUN53.4KZALT138K

3Y return · a year

PJUN +1.7pt

PJUN+12.3%ZALT+10.6%

PJUN vs ZALT Performance

Oct 31, 2025 – Oct 30, 2026

+5.9%PJUN+7.1%ZALT

Oct 31, 2025 to Oct 30, 2026. PJUN +5.9%. ZALT +7.1%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.0%2%4%Oct 2025Apr 2026Oct 2026
Expense ratio
PJUN 0.79%
ZALT 0.69%, better
Fund size
PJUN $871M
ZALT $840M
1Y total return
PJUN +5.9%
ZALT +7.1%, better
Holdings
PJUN 3
ZALT 503
Avg volume (30D)
PJUN 53.4K sh
ZALT 138K sh, better
NAV per share
PJUN $43.89
ZALT $34.50
52W range

ETF.net Grade

PJUN: Cost 40, Risk 72, Mission not scored, Tradability 65, Holdings not scored, Durability 84. ZALT: Cost 82, Risk 79, Mission 80, Tradability 65, Holdings 90, Durability 61.
Pillar letters and Scores for PJUN, ZALT, with each pillar’s weight
PillarPJUNZALT
Cost30% weightC40A82Higher
Mission25% weightNot scoredA80
Risk15% weightA72A79Higher
Tradability15% weightB65B65
Holdings10% weightNot scoredA90
Durability5% weightA84HigherB61

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. PJUN 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 PJUN 23rd 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 23BBOCTInnovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETFScore 56
  4. Rank 23BPJUNInnovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - JuneScore 56
  5. Rank 23BSEPTAllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer10 Sep ETFScore 56

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

PJUNBInnovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - June

ZALTAInnovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

In short

PJUN The June rung on Innovator's buffer ladder. PJUN pairs SPY-linked equity exposure with a built-in downside cushion and, as the price of that cushion, a ceiling on the upside. Every June it resets and the terms start over.

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

PJUN The fund seeks to match the performance of SPY up to a predetermined upside cap while buffering the first 9% of losses over the applicable 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

  • PJUN Fee of 0.79% lands right at the median for its buffer-ETF cohort. You pay the going rate for the structure, not a premium.
  • Among the easiest funds in its peer group to get in and out of, which matters when your entry date sets your terms.
  • Live since 2019 and through many annual resets, with assets in the hundreds of millions. A seasoned version of a young idea.
  • Sits in the top quartile of a crowded shallow-buffer cohort, one of the stronger implementations of the format.
  • 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

  • PJUN The cushion is paid for with a cap. The ceiling is fixed at each June reset, and a roaring year in SPY gets clipped there.
  • Buffer and cap are designed to land over a full outcome period. Buy mid-period and your actual cushion and ceiling differ from the headline terms.
  • Cheaper buffered exposure exists in the same cohort, including laddered BUFB at 0.10% and ZALT at 0.69%. No cash distributions here either.
  • 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 PJUN profile⁠

Full ZALT profile⁠

PJUN 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.

PJUN vs ZALT Cost

Overpaying PJUN vs ZALT

$1,745

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

  • PJUN 0.79%

    $15,174

  • ZALT 0.69%

    $13,429

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • PJUN 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$20K051015202530PJUN $15,174ZALT $13,429

Year by year

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

Expense ratio

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

ZALT 14th cheapest of 77 funds

PJUN 34th cheapest of 77 funds

PJUN vs ZALT Dividends

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

Distribution history

PJUNAll PJUN payments⁠

No distribution history available.

ZALTAll ZALT payments⁠

No distribution history available.

PJUN vs ZALT Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
PJUN 5.5%ZALT 3.8%, better
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
PJUN 1.34ZALT 1.50, better
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
PJUN −12.5%ZALT −8.2%since Oct 2023
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
PJUN 0.39ZALT 0.29

Popular comparisons

  • PJUNBvsAUGPB

    Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - June · 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.
  • PJUNBvsTENJB

    Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - June · 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.
  • PJUNBvsSIXJB

    Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - June · 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.