ACBE vs ACRT: which paid, and which earned it?

ACBE and ACRT both write options for income. Pacer Metaurus Enhanced Core Income Autocallable ETF and ProShares Russell 2000 Autocallable Income ETF.

0.6%
ACBE cash paid, since launch
0.0%
ACRT cash paid, since launch
+0.7%
ACBE total return, since launch
−8.7%
ACRT total return, since launch
ACBE · since launch to Sep 30, 2026About even with SPY
ACBE
+0.7%
SPY
+0.9%

About even with SPY

ACBE since launch: paid 0.6%, price +0.1%, total +0.7%, SPY +0.9%, −0.2 pts.

SPY

+0.9%

ACBE

+0.7%

about even with SPY

Total return, distributions reinvested

About even with SPY

ACBE since launch: paid 0.6%, price +0.1%, total +0.7%, SPY +0.9%, −0.2 pts.

SPY

+0.9%

ACBE

+0.7%

about even with SPY

0.6% of it arrived as cash. Total return, distributions reinvested. ACBE since launch: paid 0.6%, price +0.1%, total +0.7%, SPY +0.9%, −0.2 pts.

ACRT · since launch to Sep 30, 2026About even with IWM
ACRT
−8.7%
IWM
−8.7%

About even with IWM

ACRT since launch: paid 0.0%, price −8.7%, total −8.7%, IWM −8.7%, 0.0 pts.

IWM

−8.7%

ACRT

−8.7%

about even with IWM

Total return, distributions reinvested

About even with IWM

ACRT since launch: paid 0.0%, price −8.7%, total −8.7%, IWM −8.7%, 0.0 pts.

IWM

−8.7%

ACRT

−8.7%

about even with IWM

0.0% of it arrived as cash. Both charts share one scale, 0 to +0.9%. ACRT since launch: paid 0.0%, price −8.7%, total −8.7%, IWM −8.7%, 0.0 pts.

Performance, window by window

Total returnCash paidAgainst the benchmark
WindowACBEACRTACBEACRTACBEACRT
Since launch
ACBE Sep 2026 · ACRT Aug 2026
+0.7%−8.7%0.6%0.0%−0.2 pts0.0 pts

ACBE and ACRT over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ. Open the live comparison on ETFIQ →

On the same fields

ACBE
Pacer Metaurus Enhanced Core Income Autocallable ETF · Autocallable on SPY
ACRT
ProShares Russell 2000 Autocallable Income ETF · Autocallable on IWM
Issuer Pacer ProShares
Strategy autocallable autocallable
Benchmark S&P 500 (SPY), used as a default proxy Russell 2000 (IWM)
Pays not established not established
Payout rate, annualized 6.9% not published
Expense ratio 0.60% 0.72%
Cash paid, 1 year 0.6% (since launch on Sep 10, 2026) 0.0% (since launch on Aug 14, 2026)
Price change, 1 year +0.1% −8.7%
Total return, 1 year +0.7% (since launch on Sep 10, 2026) −8.7% (since launch on Aug 14, 2026)
Benchmark return, 1 year +0.9% −8.7%
Ahead or behind −0.2 pts 0.0 pts
Return of capital, latest estimate not published not published
Age 20 days 47 days
Net assets $3m $1m

ACBE and ACRT on the same fields, as of Sep 30, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

ACBE in plain words

Over the period since launch on Sep 10, 2026 to Sep 30, 2026, ACBE paid 0.6% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 0.1%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +0.7%. S&P 500 (SPY), used as a default proxy returned +0.9% over the same days, so a holder was about even. At its price on Sep 30, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 6.9%, paid periodically.

ACRT in plain words

Over the period since launch on Aug 14, 2026 to Sep 30, 2026, ACRT paid 0.0% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 8.7%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned −8.7%. Russell 2000 (IWM) returned −8.7% over the same days, so a holder was about even.

Questions people ask

Which is cheaper, ACBE or ACRT?
ACBE charges 0.60% a year and ACRT charges 0.72%, so ACBE is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Cite this page

ETFIQ, ACBE against ACRT, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/acbe-vs-acrt

Open data

Free to use with attribution. Every figure is calculated from a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology.