Data as of .
JANH vs QUSA: which paid, and which earned it?
Over the year QUSA paid 13.8% of its price in cash against JANH’s 6.1%, though JANH returned more with it reinvested.
ETFIQ Return Stability Score: JANH scores higher
Was the payout funded by returns, or by your own capital?
A percentile among the 173 income ETFs writing on an index or proxy. It is a position in a set, not a rating, and neither end of it is a recommendation. All income ETFs ranked by it · How it is computed
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, JANH and QUSA hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Only in JANH | Only in QUSA |
|---|---|
| TREASURY BILL 96.95% | Microsoft Corp 6.08% |
| TREASURY BILL 1.53% | Apple Inc 5.99% |
| TREASURY BILL 1.52% | NVIDIA Corp 5.78% |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc 5.35% | |
| Caterpillar Inc 4.91% | |
| Broadcom Inc 4.70% | |
| Costco Wholesale Corp 4.40% | |
| Coca-Cola Co/The 4.33% |
Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026 and Sep 21, 2026.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Cash paid | Against the benchmark | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JANH | QUSA | JANH | QUSA | JANH | QUSA | |
| 3 months | +1.6% | −1.9% | 1.6% | 3.6% | −0.6 pts | −3.6 pts |
| 6 months | +6.9% | +10.4% | 3.2% | 7.8% | −11.1 pts | −4.3 pts |
| 1 year | +6.5% | +3.5% | 6.1% | 13.8% | −10.1 pts | −11.7 pts |
| Since launch | +19.8% | +4.9% | 16.1% | 15.1% | −46.6 pts | −25.8 pts |
| JANH Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - January Defined income on SPY, paying quarterly | QUSA VistaShares Target 15 USA Quality Income ETF Covered call on QUAL, paying monthly | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Innovator | VistaShares |
| Strategy | defined income | covered call |
| Benchmark | S&P 500 (SPY) | USA Quality (QUAL), used as the quality proxy |
| Pays | quarterly | monthly |
| Payout rate, annualized | 6.2% | 15.3% |
| Expense ratio | 0.79% | 0.97% |
| Cash paid, 1 year | 6.1% | 13.8% |
| Price change, 1 year | 0.0% | −11.0% |
| Total return, 1 year | +6.5% | +3.5% |
| Benchmark return, 1 year | +16.6% | +15.2% |
| Ahead or behind | −10.1 pts | −11.7 pts |
| Return of capital, latest estimate | not published | not published |
| Age | 990 days | 500 days |
| Net assets | $14m | $22m |
JANH in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, JANH paid 6.1% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 0.0%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +6.5%. S&P 500 (SPY) returned +16.6% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 10.1 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 6.2%, paid quarterly.
QUSA in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, QUSA paid 13.8% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 11.0%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +3.5%. USA Quality (QUAL), used as the quality proxy returned +15.2% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 11.7 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 15.3%, paid monthly.
Questions people ask
- Which paid more, JANH or QUSA?
- Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, JANH paid 6.1% of its starting price in cash and QUSA paid 13.8%, so QUSA paid more. Cash paid is not the same as money made: the price change matters too.
- Which returned more once distributions are counted, JANH or QUSA?
- With every distribution reinvested, JANH returned +6.5% and QUSA returned +3.5% over the year to Sep 18, 2026, so JANH returned more.
- Which is cheaper, JANH or QUSA?
- JANH charges 0.79% a year and QUSA charges 0.97%, so JANH is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Other comparisons
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, JANH against QUSA, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/janh-vs-qusa Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.