BUFG vs. EOCT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BUFG (FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF) and EOCT (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BUFG returned 14.30%/yr vs 13.40%/yr for EOCT. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BUFG charges 1.05%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EOCT.

Performance

BUFG vs. EOCT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUFG achieves a 6.40% return, which is significantly lower than EOCT's 7.70% return.

BUFG

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: 2.34%
• YTD: 6.40%
• 6M: 6.86%
• 1Y: 17.53%
• 3Y*: 14.30%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EOCT

• 1D: -0.22%
• 1M: 1.29%
• YTD: 7.70%
• 6M: 9.20%
• 1Y: 25.27%
• 3Y*: 13.40%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFG vs. EOCT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BUFG FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF	6.40%	12.33%	15.13%	18.49%	-11.61%	1.80%
EOCT Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October	7.70%	22.03%	9.66%	6.26%	-10.75%	-1.85%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFG and EOCT is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 28, 2021	0.63

The correlation between BUFG and EOCT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

BUFG vs. EOCT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BUFG	EOCT
Technology	36.2%	37.0%
Financial Services	11.9%	19.4%
Communication Services	10.9%	6.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	9.6%
Healthcare	8.4%	2.9%
Industrials	8.1%	7.5%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	3.0%
Energy	3.5%	4.0%
Utilities	2.3%	2.1%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.1%
Basic Materials	1.8%	6.5%

Return for Risk

BUFG vs. EOCT — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFG

BUFG Risk / Return Rank: 73
BUFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
BUFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
BUFG Omega Ratio Rank: 76
BUFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
BUFG Martin Ratio Rank: 81

EOCT

EOCT Risk / Return Rank: 85
EOCT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
EOCT Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
EOCT Omega Ratio Rank: 87
EOCT Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
EOCT Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

BUFG vs. EOCT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT). 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.

	BUFG	EOCT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.31	2.80	-0.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.34	3.92	-0.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.54	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.07	4.28	-1.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.15	17.18	-1.03
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUFG vs. EOCT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFG Sharpe Ratio is 2.31, which is comparable to the EOCT Sharpe Ratio of 2.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFG and EOCT, 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

	BUFG	EOCT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.31	2.80	-0.49
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.74	0.61	+0.13

Drawdowns

BUFG vs. EOCT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFG drawdown since its inception was -17.62%, smaller than the maximum EOCT drawdown of -20.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFG and EOCT.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFG	EOCT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.62%	-20.35%	+2.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.74%	-5.93%	+0.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.20%	-10.76%	-2.44%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.30%	-0.22%	-0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.62%	-5.69%	+2.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.09%	1.47%	-0.38%

Volatility

BUFG vs. EOCT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG) is 1.20%, while Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT) has a volatility of 1.78%. This indicates that BUFG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EOCT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFG	EOCT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.20%	1.78%	-0.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.82%	6.69%	-0.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.64%	9.06%	-1.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.84%	11.31%	+0.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.84%	11.31%	+0.53%

BUFG vs. EOCT - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFG has a 1.05% expense ratio, which is higher than EOCT's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFG vs. EOCT - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFG nor EOCT has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFG and EOCT in my portfolio?

BUFG and EOCT have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFG or EOCT?

EOCT has higher volatility (1.78%) compared to BUFG (1.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFG dropped -17.62% vs EOCT's -20.35%.

Which ETF is better, BUFG or EOCT?

On 3-year performance, BUFG leads with 14.30% vs 13.40% for EOCT. On fees, EOCT is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, BUFG has been the lower-risk option at 1.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFG or EOCT?

Over the 3-year period, BUFG has performed better with a 14.30% return vs 13.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFG or EOCT?

EOCT is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for BUFG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BUFG or EOCT?

BUFG and EOCT have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BUFG and EOCT?

They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 1.05% for BUFG and 0.89% for EOCT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EOCT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 2.31), 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.