Data as of .
JULH vs PAPI: which paid, and which earned it?
Over the year PAPI paid 7.9% of its price in cash against JULH’s 4.7%, and returned more with it reinvested.
ETFIQ Return Stability Score: PAPI 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, JULH and PAPI hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Only in JULH | Only in PAPI |
|---|---|
| TREASURY BILL 100.00% | Corning, Inc. 1.01% |
| TD SYNNEX Corp. 0.81% | |
| Cisco Systems, Inc. 0.77% | |
| Power Integrations, Inc. 0.73% | |
| Royalty Pharma plc 0.73% | |
| Millicom International Cellular SA 0.72% | |
| Avnet, Inc. 0.71% | |
| Texas Instruments, Inc. 0.71% |
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 Jun 30, 2026.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Cash paid | Against the benchmark | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JULH | PAPI | JULH | PAPI | JULH | PAPI | |
| 3 months | +1.8% | +4.7% | 1.1% | 2.0% | −0.4 pts | +2.5 pts |
| 6 months | +4.0% | +5.6% | 2.7% | 4.0% | −14.0 pts | −12.4 pts |
| 1 year | +4.5% | +12.8% | 4.7% | 7.9% | −12.1 pts | −3.8 pts |
| 3 years | +20.7% | not published | 18.4% | not published | −57.7 pts | not published |
| Since launch | +22.7% | +35.6% | 18.6% | 22.5% | −55.9 pts | −49.6 pts |
| JULH Innovator Premium Income 20 Barrier ETF - July Defined income on SPY, paying quarterly | PAPI Parametric Equity Premium Income ETF Covered call on SPY, paying monthly | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Innovator | Parametric |
| Strategy | defined income | covered call |
| Benchmark | S&P 500 (SPY) | S&P 500 (SPY) |
| Pays | quarterly | monthly |
| Payout rate, annualized | 4.2% | 7.2% |
| Expense ratio | 0.79% | 0.29% |
| Cash paid, 1 year | 4.7% | 7.9% |
| Price change, 1 year | −0.4% | +4.5% |
| Total return, 1 year | +4.5% | +12.8% |
| Benchmark return, 1 year | +16.6% | +16.6% |
| Ahead or behind | −12.1 pts | −3.8 pts |
| Return of capital, latest estimate | not published | not published |
| Age | 1173 days | 1065 days |
| Net assets | $17m | $400m |
JULH in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, JULH paid 4.7% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 0.4%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +4.5%. S&P 500 (SPY) returned +16.6% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 12.1 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 4.2%, paid quarterly.
PAPI in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, PAPI paid 7.9% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 4.5%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +12.8%. S&P 500 (SPY) returned +16.6% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 3.8 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 7.2%, paid monthly.
Questions people ask
- Which paid more, JULH or PAPI?
- Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, JULH paid 4.7% of its starting price in cash and PAPI paid 7.9%, so PAPI paid more. Cash paid is not the same as money made: the price change matters too.
- Which returned more once distributions are counted, JULH or PAPI?
- With every distribution reinvested, JULH returned +4.5% and PAPI returned +12.8% over the year to Sep 18, 2026, so PAPI returned more.
- Which is cheaper, JULH or PAPI?
- JULH charges 0.79% a year and PAPI charges 0.29%, so PAPI 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, JULH against PAPI, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/julh-vs-papi Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.