DAPR vs. XBAP

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

DAPR (FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - April) and XBAP (Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds. DAPR is passively managed, while XBAP is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, DAPR returned 5.89%/yr vs 9.51%/yr for XBAP. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. DAPR charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for XBAP.

Performance

DAPR vs. XBAP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - April (DAPR) and Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - April (XBAP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DAPR achieves a 3.22% return, which is significantly lower than XBAP's 7.58% return.

DAPR

• 1D: -0.47%
• 1M: -0.26%
• YTD: 3.22%
• 6M: 3.29%
• 1Y: 8.85%
• 3Y*: 10.16%
• 5Y*: 5.89%
• 10Y*: —

XBAP

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: -0.07%
• YTD: 7.58%
• 6M: 7.77%
• 1Y: 14.57%
• 3Y*: 13.22%
• 5Y*: 9.51%
• 10Y*: —

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

DAPR vs. XBAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DAPR FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - April	3.22%	5.74%	14.99%	9.84%	-6.84%	5.20%
XBAP Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - April	7.58%	13.38%	11.55%	20.53%	-7.59%	5.62%

Correlation

The correlation between DAPR and XBAP is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.83
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 19, 2021	0.87

The correlation between DAPR and XBAP shifts across timeframes, from 0.70 (1 year) to 0.87 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

DAPR vs. XBAP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DAPR	XBAP
Technology	39.0%	39.1%
Financial Services	11.1%	10.9%
Communication Services	10.6%	10.7%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	9.9%
Healthcare	8.3%	8.3%
Industrials	7.8%	7.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.5%	4.5%
Energy	3.1%	3.1%
Utilities	2.1%	2.1%
Real Estate	1.8%	1.8%
Basic Materials	1.7%	1.7%

Return for Risk

DAPR vs. XBAP — Risk / Return Rank

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

DAPR

DAPR Risk / Return Rank: 93
DAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
DAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
DAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 93
DAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
DAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

XBAP

XBAP Risk / Return Rank: 98
XBAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
XBAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
XBAP Omega Ratio Rank: 98
XBAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
XBAP Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

DAPR vs. XBAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - April (DAPR) and Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - April (XBAP). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	DAPR	XBAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.78	4.06	-1.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.19	7.30	-3.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.61	2.04	-0.43
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.61	11.29	-5.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	36.08	64.34	-28.26

DAPR vs. XBAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DAPR Sharpe Ratio is 2.78, which is lower than the XBAP Sharpe Ratio of 4.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DAPR and XBAP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

DAPR vs. XBAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DAPR drawdown since its inception was -10.51%, smaller than the maximum XBAP drawdown of -14.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DAPR and XBAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	DAPR	XBAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.51%	-14.57%	+4.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.59%	-1.30%	-0.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.51%	-8.25%	-2.26%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-10.51%	-14.57%	+4.06%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.91%	-0.69%	-0.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.28%	-1.73%	-0.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.25%	0.23%	+0.02%

Volatility

DAPR vs. XBAP - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - April (DAPR) has a higher volatility of 1.85% compared to Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - April (XBAP) at 1.57%. This indicates that DAPR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XBAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DAPR	XBAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.85%	1.57%	+0.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.58%	2.94%	-0.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.20%	3.62%	-0.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.23%	9.98%	-1.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.15%	9.84%	-1.69%

DAPR vs. XBAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

DAPR has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than XBAP's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

DAPR vs. XBAP - Dividend Comparison

Neither DAPR nor XBAP has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DAPR and XBAP in my portfolio?

DAPR and XBAP have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DAPR or XBAP?

DAPR has higher volatility (1.85%) compared to XBAP (1.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DAPR dropped -10.51% vs XBAP's -14.57%.

Which ETF is better, DAPR or XBAP?

On 5-year performance, XBAP leads with 9.51% vs 5.89% for DAPR. On fees, XBAP is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, XBAP has been the lower-risk option at 1.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DAPR or XBAP?

Over the 5-year period, XBAP has performed better with a 9.51% return vs 5.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DAPR or XBAP?

XBAP is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DAPR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, DAPR or XBAP?

DAPR and XBAP have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between DAPR and XBAP?

They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DAPR and 0.79% for XBAP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XBAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.06 vs 2.78), 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.