BFOC vs. EAPR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BFOC (FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - October) and EAPR (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds. BFOC is actively managed, while EAPR is passively managed. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BFOC charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EAPR.

Performance

BFOC vs. EAPR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - October (BFOC) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BFOC achieves a -7.39% return, which is significantly lower than EAPR's 11.39% return.

BFOC

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: -2.82%
• YTD: -7.39%
• 6M: -9.28%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EAPR

• 1D: -0.45%
• 1M: 2.01%
• YTD: 11.39%
• 6M: 12.25%
• 1Y: 22.07%
• 3Y*: 10.62%
• 5Y*: 5.15%
• 10Y*: —

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

BFOC vs. EAPR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BFOC FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - October	-7.39%	-9.76%
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	11.39%	1.61%

Correlation

The correlation between BFOC and EAPR is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 2, 2025	0.38

Return for Risk

BFOC vs. EAPR — Risk / Return Rank

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

EAPR

EAPR Risk / Return Rank: 94
EAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
EAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
EAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
EAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
EAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

BFOC vs. EAPR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - October (BFOC) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR). 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BFOC	EAPR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	3.06	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.51	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-1.88	0.54	-2.42

Drawdowns

BFOC vs. EAPR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BFOC drawdown since its inception was -18.20%, roughly equal to the maximum EAPR drawdown of -17.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BFOC and EAPR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BFOC	EAPR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.20%	-17.65%	-0.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-3.02%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-10.24%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.65%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.20%	-0.45%	-17.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.52%	-4.06%	-8.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.52%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BFOC	EAPR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	3.79%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	6.28%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.61%	7.24%	+5.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.61%	10.09%	+2.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.61%	10.02%	+2.59%

BFOC vs. EAPR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BFOC has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than EAPR's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

BFOC vs. EAPR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BFOC nor EAPR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BFOC and EAPR in my portfolio?

BFOC and EAPR have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BFOC or EAPR?

On fees, EAPR is cheaper at 0.89% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BFOC or EAPR?

EAPR is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BFOC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BFOC or EAPR?

BFOC and EAPR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BFOC and EAPR?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for BFOC and 0.89% for EAPR.