Skip to content

SIXJ vs ZALT

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

SIXJBCboe

Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

ZALTACboe

Overlap

Expense ratio

ZALT −0.05pt a year

SIXJ0.74%ZALT0.69%

Avg volume · 30D

ZALT 9.1×the volume

SIXJ15.1KZALT138K

3Y return · a year

SIXJ +4.3pt

SIXJ+14.9%ZALT+10.6%

SIXJ vs ZALT Performance

Oct 31, 2025 – Oct 30, 2026

+10.5%SIXJ+7.1%ZALT

Oct 31, 2025 to Oct 30, 2026. SIXJ +10.5%. ZALT +7.1%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.0%2.5%5%12.5%Oct 2025Apr 2026Oct 2026
Expense ratio
SIXJ 0.74%
ZALT 0.69%, better
Fund size
SIXJ $149M
ZALT $840M
1Y total return
SIXJ +10.5%, better
ZALT +7.1%
Holdings
SIXJ 3
ZALT 503
Avg volume (30D)
SIXJ 15.1K sh
ZALT 138K sh, better
NAV per share
SIXJ $37.56
ZALT $34.50
52W range

ETF.net Grade

SIXJ: Cost 68, Risk 67, Mission not scored, Tradability 70, Holdings 53, Durability 57. ZALT: Cost 82, Risk 79, Mission 80, Tradability 65, Holdings 90, Durability 61.
Pillar letters and Scores for SIXJ, ZALT, with each pillar’s weight
PillarSIXJZALT
Cost30% weightB68A82Higher
Mission25% weightNot scoredA80
Risk15% weightB67A79Higher
Tradability15% weightA70HigherB65
Holdings10% weightC53A90Higher
Durability5% weightB57B61Higher

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. SIXJ 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 SIXJ 4th 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 3BTENJiShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Jun ETFScore 66
  4. Rank 4BSIXJAllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 Jan/Jul ETFScore 65
  5. Rank 5BBUFMAB Moderate Buffer ETFScore 64

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

SIXJBAllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 Jan/Jul ETF

ZALTAInnovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

In short

SIXJ Most buffer ETFs lock you into a 12-month cycle. SIXJ runs a six-month one, resetting each January and July: it tracks SPY's share-price move, absorbs the first 10% of losses, and takes a fresh upside cap twice a year.

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

SIXJ The Fund seeks to match the share-price return of SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust over a six-month outcome period, subject to an upside cap and protection against the first 10% 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

  • SIXJ The 10% buffer and the cap reset every January 1 and July 1, so terms refresh twice a year instead of on the usual annual clock.
  • 0.74% expense ratio, on the lean side for a defined-outcome fund and below the typical fee among its shallow-buffer peers.
  • The reference asset is SPY itself, the original S&P 500 ETF, so the payoff is keyed to a plain vanilla benchmark rather than a bespoke index.
  • Rates among the stronger implementations in a crowded shallow-buffer field, alongside AllianzIM's other six-month siblings like SIXZ and SIXD.
  • 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

  • SIXJ Buffer and cap are designed to work over the full six-month period. Buy mid-period and you get whatever cushion and upside room remain at that moment.
  • It tracks SPY's share-price return, so dividends aren't passed through and the fund isn't structured to pay income.
  • Volume is light next to the largest buffer funds, so bid-ask spreads can run wider, especially in fast-moving markets.
  • 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 SIXJ profile⁠

Full ZALT profile⁠

SIXJ 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.

SIXJ vs ZALT Cost

Overpaying SIXJ vs ZALT

$878

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

  • SIXJ 0.74%

    $14,307

  • ZALT 0.69%

    $13,429

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • SIXJ 0.74%
  • 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$15K051015202530SIXJ $14,307ZALT $13,429

Year by year

YearSIXJZALTOverpaying
10$1,319$1,232$87
20$5,015$4,697$318
30$14,307$13,429$878

Expense ratio

  • 0.74%SIXJ
  • 0.69%ZALT, cheaper
  • Middle half of S&P 500 Buffer 9-12% funds
  • Median 0.79%

ZALT 14th cheapest of 77 funds

SIXJ 17th cheapest of 77 funds

SIXJ vs ZALT Dividends

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

Distribution history

SIXJAll SIXJ payments⁠

No distribution history available.

ZALTAll ZALT payments⁠

No distribution history available.

SIXJ vs ZALT Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
SIXJ 5.9%ZALT 3.8%, better
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
SIXJ 1.67, betterZALT 1.50
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
SIXJ −14.1%since Jan 2022ZALT −8.2%since Oct 2023
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
SIXJ 0.46ZALT 0.29

Popular comparisons

  • SIXJBvsAUGPB

    AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 Jan/Jul ETF · PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - August

    Expense ratio
    0.74% · 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.
  • SIXJBvsTENJB

    AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 Jan/Jul ETF · iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Jun ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.74% · 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.
  • SIXJBvsBUFMB

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

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

    Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly · AB Moderate Buffer ETF

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