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

ACRT and PLA both write options for income. ProShares Russell 2000 Autocallable Income ETF and GraniteShares Autocallable PLTR ETF.

0.0%
ACRT cash paid, since launch
6.9%
PLA cash paid, since launch
−8.7%
ACRT total return, since launch
+11.1%
PLA total return, since launch
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. Total return, distributions reinvested. ACRT since launch: paid 0.0%, price −8.7%, total −8.7%, IWM −8.7%, 0.0 pts.

PLA · since launch to Sep 30, 202627.2 pts behind PLTR
PLA
+11.1%
PLTR
+38.3%

27.2 pts behind PLTR

PLA since launch: paid 6.9%, price +3.7%, total +11.1%, PLTR +38.3%, −27.2 pts.

PLTR

+38.3%

PLA

+11.1%

6.9% cash

27.2 pts behind PLTR

Total return, distributions reinvested

27.2 pts behind PLTR

PLA since launch: paid 6.9%, price +3.7%, total +11.1%, PLTR +38.3%, −27.2 pts.

PLTR

+38.3%

PLA

+11.1%

27.2 pts behind PLTR

6.9% of it arrived as cash. Both charts share one scale, 0 to +38.3%. PLA since launch: paid 6.9%, price +3.7%, total +11.1%, PLTR +38.3%, −27.2 pts.

Performance, window by window

Total returnCash paidAgainst the benchmark
WindowACRTPLAACRTPLAACRTPLA
3 monthsnot published+11.5%not published3.5%not published−37.2 pts
Since launch
ACRT Aug 2026 · PLA May 2026
−8.7%+11.1%0.0%6.9%0.0 pts−27.2 pts

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

On the same fields

ACRT
ProShares Russell 2000 Autocallable Income ETF · Autocallable on IWM
PLA
GraniteShares Autocallable PLTR ETF · Autocallable on PLTR, paying monthly
Issuer ProShares GraniteShares
Strategy autocallable autocallable
Benchmark Russell 2000 (IWM) Palantir (PLTR)
Pays not established monthly
Payout rate, annualized not published 19.3%
Expense ratio 0.72% 1.07%
Cash paid, 1 year 0.0% (since launch on Aug 14, 2026) 6.9% (since launch on May 19, 2026)
Price change, 1 year −8.7% +3.7%
Total return, 1 year −8.7% (since launch on Aug 14, 2026) +11.1% (since launch on May 19, 2026)
Benchmark return, 1 year −8.7% +38.3%
Ahead or behind 0.0 pts −27.2 pts
Return of capital, latest estimate not published 0%
Age 47 days 134 days
Net assets $1m $4m

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

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.

PLA in plain words

Over the period since launch on May 19, 2026 to Sep 30, 2026, PLA paid 6.9% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 3.7%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +11.1%. Palantir (PLTR) returned +38.3% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 27.2 pts. At its price on Sep 30, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 19.3%, paid monthly. GraniteShares estimates that 0% of the distribution paid Sep 11, 2026 was a return of capital (19a-1 notice, estimated, a tax characterization rather than a measure of erosion).

Questions people ask

Which is cheaper, ACRT or PLA?
ACRT charges 0.72% a year and PLA charges 1.07%, so ACRT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Cite this page

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

Open data

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