BFEB vs. MSTQ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BFEB (Innovator S&P 500 Buffer ETF - February) and MSTQ (LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF) are both Options Trading funds. BFEB is passively managed, while MSTQ is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BFEB returned 16.68%/yr vs 24.11%/yr for MSTQ. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BFEB charges 0.79%/yr vs 1.59%/yr for MSTQ.

Performance

BFEB vs. MSTQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator S&P 500 Buffer ETF - February (BFEB) and LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF (MSTQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BFEB achieves a 8.25% return, which is significantly lower than MSTQ's 17.40% return.

BFEB

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 2.99%
• YTD: 8.25%
• 6M: 9.24%
• 1Y: 21.21%
• 3Y*: 16.68%
• 5Y*: 11.70%
• 10Y*: —

MSTQ

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 9.02%
• YTD: 17.40%
• 6M: 15.69%
• 1Y: 31.81%
• 3Y*: 24.11%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BFEB vs. MSTQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BFEB Innovator S&P 500 Buffer ETF - February	8.25%	12.99%	17.58%	22.35%	-3.27%
MSTQ LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF	17.40%	20.57%	19.58%	43.10%	-21.67%

Correlation

The correlation between BFEB and MSTQ is 0.85, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 16, 2022	0.86

The correlation between BFEB and MSTQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

BFEB vs. MSTQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BFEB	MSTQ
Technology	36.2%	54.0%
Financial Services	11.9%	0.2%
Communication Services	10.9%	15.6%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	12.2%
Healthcare	8.4%	4.2%
Industrials	8.1%	2.9%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	7.6%
Energy	3.5%	0.6%
Utilities	2.3%	1.4%
Real Estate	1.9%	0.1%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.1%

Return for Risk

BFEB vs. MSTQ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BFEB

BFEB Risk / Return Rank: 80
BFEB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
BFEB Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
BFEB Omega Ratio Rank: 84
BFEB Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
BFEB Martin Ratio Rank: 83

MSTQ

MSTQ Risk / Return Rank: 59
MSTQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
MSTQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
MSTQ Omega Ratio Rank: 64
MSTQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
MSTQ Martin Ratio Rank: 48

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BFEB vs. MSTQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator S&P 500 Buffer ETF - February (BFEB) and LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF (MSTQ). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	BFEB	MSTQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.63	2.23	+0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.76	2.97	+0.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.39	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.32	2.58	+0.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.95	8.04	+8.91
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BFEB vs. MSTQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BFEB Sharpe Ratio is 2.63, which is comparable to the MSTQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BFEB and MSTQ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BFEB	MSTQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.63	2.23	+0.40
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.03	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.90	0.87	+0.02

Drawdowns

BFEB vs. MSTQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BFEB drawdown since its inception was -26.37%, smaller than the maximum MSTQ drawdown of -31.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BFEB and MSTQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	BFEB	MSTQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.37%	-31.05%	+4.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.41%	-12.39%	+5.98%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.82%	-15.22%	+1.40%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.84%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.29%	-0.21%	-0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.69%	-8.62%	+5.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.25%	3.97%	-2.72%

Volatility

BFEB vs. MSTQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator S&P 500 Buffer ETF - February (BFEB) is 1.51%, while LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF (MSTQ) has a volatility of 4.25%. This indicates that BFEB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MSTQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BFEB	MSTQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.51%	4.25%	-2.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.31%	10.58%	-4.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.10%	14.35%	-6.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.39%	18.85%	-7.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.19%	18.85%	-4.66%

BFEB vs. MSTQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

BFEB has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than MSTQ's 1.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

BFEB vs. MSTQ - Dividend Comparison

BFEB has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MSTQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.90%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BFEB Innovator S&P 500 Buffer ETF - February	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MSTQ LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF	11.90%	13.97%	3.72%	0.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BFEB and MSTQ in my portfolio?

BFEB and MSTQ have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BFEB or MSTQ?

MSTQ has higher volatility (4.25%) compared to BFEB (1.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BFEB dropped -26.37% vs MSTQ's -31.05%.

Which ETF is better, BFEB or MSTQ?

On 3-year performance, MSTQ leads with 24.11% vs 16.68% for BFEB. On fees, BFEB is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, BFEB has been the lower-risk option at 1.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BFEB or MSTQ?

Over the 3-year period, MSTQ has performed better with a 24.11% return vs 16.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BFEB or MSTQ?

BFEB is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 1.59% for MSTQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BFEB or MSTQ?

MSTQ has the higher dividend yield at 11.90%, compared with 0.00% for BFEB.

What is the main difference between BFEB and MSTQ?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Little Harbor Advisors. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for BFEB and 1.59% for MSTQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BFEB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.63 vs 2.23), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.