ANV vs JANH: which paid, and which earned it?

ANV and JANH both write options for income. GraniteShares Autocallable NVDA ETF and Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - January.

9.5%
ANV cash paid, since launch
6.3%
JANH cash paid, 1 year
+13.2%
ANV total return, since launch
+6.5%
JANH total return, 1 year
ANV · since launch to Sep 30, 202613.8 pts behind NVDA
ANV
+13.2%
NVDA
+26.9%

13.8 pts behind NVDA

ANV since launch: paid 9.5%, price +3.0%, total +13.2%, NVDA +26.9%, −13.8 pts.

NVDA

+26.9%

ANV

+13.2%

9.5% of it arrived as cash

13.8 pts behind NVDA

Total return, distributions reinvested

13.8 pts behind NVDA

ANV since launch: paid 9.5%, price +3.0%, total +13.2%, NVDA +26.9%, −13.8 pts.

NVDA

+26.9%

ANV

+13.2%

13.8 pts behind NVDA

9.5% of it arrived as cash. Total return, distributions reinvested. ANV since launch: paid 9.5%, price +3.0%, total +13.2%, NVDA +26.9%, −13.8 pts.

JANH · 1 year to Sep 30, 20269.2 pts behind SPY
JANH
+6.5%
SPY
+15.7%

9.2 pts behind SPY

JANH over 1 year: paid 6.3%, price +0.1%, total +6.5%, SPY +15.7%, −9.2 pts.

SPY

+15.7%

JANH

+6.5%

6.3% as cash

9.2 pts behind SPY

Total return, distributions reinvested

9.2 pts behind SPY

JANH over 1 year: paid 6.3%, price +0.1%, total +6.5%, SPY +15.7%, −9.2 pts.

SPY

+15.7%

JANH

+6.5%

9.2 pts behind SPY

6.3% of it arrived as cash. Both charts share one scale, 0 to +26.9%. JANH over 1 year: paid 6.3%, price +0.1%, total +6.5%, SPY +15.7%, −9.2 pts.

Performance, window by window

Total returnCash paidAgainst the benchmark
WindowANVJANHANVJANHANVJANH
3 months+5.3%+1.6%2.5%1.6%−10.4 pts−0.9 pts
6 months+11.1%+6.1%6.8%3.2%−19.2 pts−10.9 pts
1 yearnot published+6.5%not published6.3%not published−9.2 pts
Since launch
ANV Feb 2026 · JANH Jan 2024
+13.2%+20.0%9.5%17.7%−13.8 pts−46.6 pts

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

On the same fields

ANV
GraniteShares Autocallable NVDA ETF · Autocallable on NVDA, paying monthly
JANH
Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - January · Defined income on SPY, paying quarterly
Issuer GraniteShares Innovator
Strategy autocallable defined income
Benchmark NVIDIA (NVDA) S&P 500 (SPY)
Pays monthly quarterly
Payout rate, annualized 13.9% 6.3%
Expense ratio 1.07% 0.79%
Cash paid, 1 year 9.5% (since launch on Feb 3, 2026) 6.3%
Price change, 1 year +3.0% +0.1%
Total return, 1 year +13.2% (since launch on Feb 3, 2026) +6.5%
Benchmark return, 1 year +26.9% +15.7%
Ahead or behind −13.8 pts −9.2 pts
Return of capital, latest estimate 5% not published
Age 239 days 1002 days
Net assets $7m $12m

ANV and JANH on the same fields, as of Sep 30, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

ANV in plain words

Over the period since launch on Feb 3, 2026 to Sep 30, 2026, ANV paid 9.5% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 3.0%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +13.2%. NVIDIA (NVDA) returned +26.9% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 13.8 pts. At its price on Sep 30, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 13.9%, paid monthly. GraniteShares estimates that 5% 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).

JANH in plain words

Over the year to Sep 30, 2026, JANH paid 6.3% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 0.1%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +6.5%. S&P 500 (SPY) returned +15.7% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 9.2 pts. At its price on Sep 30, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 6.3%, paid quarterly.

Questions people ask

Which is cheaper, ANV or JANH?
ANV charges 1.07% a year and JANH charges 0.79%, so JANH is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Cite this page

ETFIQ, ANV against JANH, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/anv-vs-janh

Open data

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