Data as of .
LJUL vs SCLZ: which paid, and which earned it?
Over the year SCLZ paid 8.4% of its price in cash against LJUL’s 5.2%, and returned more with it reinvested.
ETFIQ Return Stability Score: SCLZ 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, LJUL and SCLZ hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Only in LJUL | Only in SCLZ |
|---|---|
| TREASURY BILL 99.57% | MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC 7.89% |
| TREASURY BILL 0.43% | APPLE INC 6.15% |
| NVIDIA CORP 5.99% | |
| ALPHABET INC 5.18% | |
| ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC 5.14% | |
| BROADCOM INC 4.71% | |
| ELI LILLY & COMPANY 3.86% | |
| AMAZON.COM INC 3.75% |
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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LJUL | SCLZ | LJUL | SCLZ | LJUL | SCLZ | |
| 3 months | +1.5% | +2.9% | 1.3% | 2.1% | −0.8 pts | −3.6 pts |
| 6 months | +3.1% | +14.2% | 2.6% | 3.8% | −14.9 pts | +1.6 pts |
| 1 year | +5.0% | +13.2% | 5.2% | 8.4% | −11.5 pts | −14.0 pts |
| Since launch | +13.2% | +36.5% | 11.7% | 19.6% | −30.2 pts | −6.3 pts |
| LJUL Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July Buffer with income on SPY, paying monthly | SCLZ Swan Enhanced Dividend Income ETF Dividend stocks with call overlay on SCHD, paying monthly | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Innovator | Swan |
| Strategy | buffer with income | dividend stocks with call overlay |
| Benchmark | S&P 500 (SPY) | US dividend stocks (SCHD), used as the dividend proxy |
| Pays | monthly | monthly |
| Payout rate, annualized | 5.3% | 8.5% |
| Expense ratio | 0.79% | 0.79% |
| Cash paid, 1 year | 5.2% | 8.4% |
| Price change, 1 year | −0.3% | +4.1% |
| Total return, 1 year | +5.0% | +13.2% |
| Benchmark return, 1 year | +16.6% | +27.2% |
| Ahead or behind | −11.5 pts | −14.0 pts |
| Return of capital, latest estimate | not published | not published |
| Age | 809 days | 934 days |
| Net assets | $9m | $20m |
LJUL in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, LJUL paid 5.2% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 0.3%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +5.0%. S&P 500 (SPY) returned +16.6% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 11.5 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 5.3%, paid monthly.
SCLZ in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, SCLZ paid 8.4% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 4.1%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +13.2%. US dividend stocks (SCHD), used as the dividend proxy returned +27.2% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 14.0 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 8.5%, paid monthly.
Questions people ask
- Which paid more, LJUL or SCLZ?
- Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, LJUL paid 5.2% of its starting price in cash and SCLZ paid 8.4%, so SCLZ paid more. Cash paid is not the same as money made: the price change matters too.
- Which returned more once distributions are counted, LJUL or SCLZ?
- With every distribution reinvested, LJUL returned +5.0% and SCLZ returned +13.2% over the year to Sep 18, 2026, so SCLZ returned more.
- Which is cheaper, LJUL or SCLZ?
- LJUL charges 0.79% a year and SCLZ charges 0.79%, so LJUL 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, LJUL against SCLZ, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/ljul-vs-sclz Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.