BFRZ vs. BALT
BFRZ (Innovator Equity Managed 100 Buffer ETF) and BALT (Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds from Innovator. BFRZ is actively managed, while BALT is passively managed. Over the past year, BFRZ returned 8.04% vs 6.95% for BALT. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BFRZ charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for BALT.
Performance
BFRZ vs. BALT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BFRZ achieves a 1.49% return, which is significantly lower than BALT's 1.91% return.
BFRZ
- 1D
- -0.42%
- 1M
- 2.76%
- YTD
- 1.49%
- 6M
- 1.75%
- 1Y
- 8.04%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BALT
- 1D
- -0.06%
- 1M
- 0.53%
- YTD
- 1.91%
- 6M
- 2.81%
- 1Y
- 6.95%
- 3Y*
- 7.27%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BFRZ vs. BALT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BFRZ Innovator Equity Managed 100 Buffer ETF | 1.49% | 7.39% |
BALT Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF | 1.91% | 5.46% |
Correlation
The correlation between BFRZ and BALT is 0.57, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.57 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 14, 2025 | 0.55 |
The correlation between BFRZ and BALT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BFRZ vs. BALT — Risk / Return Rank
BFRZ
BALT
BFRZ vs. BALT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Equity Managed 100 Buffer ETF (BFRZ) and Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF (BALT). 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.
| BFRZ | BALT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.57 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.67 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.31 | 1.67 | -0.36 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.59 | 6.05 | -3.47 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.31 | 22.58 | -15.27 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| BFRZ | BALT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.62 | 3.19 | -1.57 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.75 | 1.80 | -0.05 |
Drawdowns
BFRZ vs. BALT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BFRZ drawdown since its inception was -3.12%, smaller than the maximum BALT drawdown of -4.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BFRZ and BALT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BFRZ | BALT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -3.12% | -4.89% | +1.77% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.12% | -1.15% | -1.97% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -4.89% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.42% | -0.06% | -0.36% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.66% | -0.34% | -0.32% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.10% | 0.31% | +0.79% |
Volatility
BFRZ vs. BALT - Volatility Comparison
Innovator Equity Managed 100 Buffer ETF (BFRZ) has a higher volatility of 1.16% compared to Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF (BALT) at 0.37%. This indicates that BFRZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BALT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BFRZ | BALT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.16% | 0.37% | +0.79% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.72% | 1.56% | +2.16% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.99% | 2.19% | +2.80% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.88% | 3.32% | +1.56% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.88% | 3.32% | +1.56% |
BFRZ vs. BALT - Expense Ratio Comparison
BFRZ has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than BALT's 0.69% expense ratio.
Dividends
BFRZ vs. BALT - Dividend Comparison
BFRZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.26%, while BALT has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
BALT Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% |
BFRZ Innovator Equity Managed 100 Buffer ETF | 0.26% | 0.20% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BFRZ and BALT have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BFRZ has higher volatility (1.16%) compared to BALT (0.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BFRZ dropped -3.12% vs BALT's -4.89%.
On 1-year performance, BFRZ leads with 8.04% vs 6.95% for BALT. On fees, BALT is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, BALT has been the lower-risk option at 0.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, BFRZ has performed better with a 8.04% return vs 6.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BALT is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for BFRZ.
BFRZ has the higher dividend yield at 0.26%, compared with 0.00% for BALT.
Their fees differ too: 0.89% for BFRZ and 0.69% for BALT.
BALT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs 1.62), 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.
Find the right allocation for BFRZ and BALT
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer