BUFB vs. QFLR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BUFB (Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF) and QFLR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFB is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the MerQube U.S. Large Cap Equity Buffer Laddered Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while QFLR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Innovator. BUFB is passively managed, while QFLR is actively managed. Over the past year, BUFB returned 19.07% vs 26.98% for QFLR. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.89% expense ratio.

Performance

BUFB vs. QFLR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF (BUFB) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with BUFB having a 7.03% return and QFLR slightly lower at 6.90%.

BUFB

• 1D: -0.31%
• 1M: 2.46%
• YTD: 7.03%
• 6M: 7.78%
• 1Y: 19.07%
• 3Y*: 15.74%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QFLR

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 3.99%
• YTD: 6.90%
• 6M: 5.88%
• 1Y: 26.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFB vs. QFLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BUFB Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF	7.03%	13.42%	14.06%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	6.90%	17.27%	16.64%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFB and QFLR is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 26, 2024	0.81

The correlation between BUFB and QFLR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

BUFB vs. QFLR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BUFB	QFLR
Technology	36.2%	50.8%
Financial Services	11.9%	0.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	18.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	12.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	3.2%
Industrials	8.1%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	9.2%
Energy	3.5%	1.1%
Utilities	2.3%	1.5%
Real Estate	1.9%	-
Basic Materials	1.8%	0.0%

Return for Risk

BUFB vs. QFLR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFB

BUFB Risk / Return Rank: 81
BUFB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
BUFB Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
BUFB Omega Ratio Rank: 84
BUFB Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
BUFB Martin Ratio Rank: 89

QFLR

QFLR Risk / Return Rank: 74
QFLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QFLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
QFLR Omega Ratio Rank: 74
QFLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
QFLR Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

BUFB vs. QFLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF (BUFB) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). 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.

	BUFB	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.55	2.41	+0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.70	3.26	+0.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.44	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.74	3.56	+0.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.82	15.19	+4.63
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUFB vs. QFLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFB Sharpe Ratio is 2.55, which is comparable to the QFLR Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFB and QFLR, 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

	BUFB	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.55	2.41	+0.15
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.91	1.40	-0.49

Drawdowns

BUFB vs. QFLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFB drawdown since its inception was -14.88%, which is greater than QFLR's maximum drawdown of -13.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFB and QFLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFB	QFLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.88%	-13.97%	-0.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.12%	-7.61%	+2.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.75%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.31%	-0.48%	+0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.88%	-2.50%	-0.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.96%	1.78%	-0.82%

Volatility

BUFB vs. QFLR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF (BUFB) is 1.33%, while Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) has a volatility of 2.53%. This indicates that BUFB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QFLR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFB	QFLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.33%	2.53%	-1.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.76%	8.05%	-2.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.51%	11.28%	-3.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.01%	12.62%	-0.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.01%	12.62%	-0.61%

BUFB vs. QFLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BUFB and QFLR have an expense ratio of 0.89%.

Dividends

BUFB vs. QFLR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFB nor QFLR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BUFB Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	0.00%	0.02%	0.03%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFB and QFLR in my portfolio?

BUFB and QFLR have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFB or QFLR?

QFLR has higher volatility (2.53%) compared to BUFB (1.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFB dropped -14.88% vs QFLR's -13.97%.

Which ETF is better, BUFB or QFLR?

On 1-year performance, QFLR leads with 26.98% vs 19.07% for BUFB. Both ETFs have the same 0.89% expense ratio. On volatility, BUFB has been the lower-risk option at 1.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFB or QFLR?

Over the 1-year period, QFLR has performed better with a 26.98% return vs 19.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFB or QFLR?

BUFB and QFLR have the same expense ratio: 0.89% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BUFB or QFLR?

BUFB and QFLR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BUFB and QFLR?

BUFB is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QFLR is Nasdaq-100.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BUFB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 2.41), 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.