DAUG vs. XBAP

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

DAUG (FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - August) and XBAP (Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds. DAUG is passively managed, while XBAP is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, DAUG returned 6.27%/yr vs 9.51%/yr for XBAP. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. DAUG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for XBAP.

Performance

DAUG 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 - August (DAUG) 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, DAUG achieves a 4.97% return, which is significantly lower than XBAP's 7.58% return.

DAUG

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: 0.31%
• YTD: 4.97%
• 6M: 4.69%
• 1Y: 13.72%
• 3Y*: 11.85%
• 5Y*: 6.27%
• 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)

DAUG vs. XBAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DAUG FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - August	4.97%	11.75%	12.00%	13.85%	-11.95%	4.64%
XBAP Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - April	7.58%	13.38%	11.55%	20.53%	-7.59%	7.65%

Correlation

The correlation between DAUG and XBAP is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.81
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2021	0.84

The correlation between DAUG and XBAP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

DAUG vs. XBAP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DAUG	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

DAUG vs. XBAP — Risk / Return Rank

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

DAUG

DAUG Risk / Return Rank: 82
DAUG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
DAUG Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
DAUG Omega Ratio Rank: 88
DAUG Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
DAUG Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

DAUG 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 - August (DAUG) 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.

	DAUG	XBAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.48	4.06	-1.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.62	7.30	-3.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	2.04	-0.54
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.15	11.29	-8.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.62	64.34	-47.71

DAUG vs. XBAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DAUG Sharpe Ratio is 2.48, which is lower than the XBAP Sharpe Ratio of 4.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DAUG 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

DAUG vs. XBAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DAUG drawdown since its inception was -15.34%, which is greater than XBAP's maximum drawdown of -14.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DAUG and XBAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	DAUG	XBAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.34%	-14.57%	-0.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.37%	-1.30%	-3.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.53%	-8.25%	-2.28%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-15.34%	-14.57%	-0.77%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.45%	-0.69%	+0.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.80%	-1.73%	-1.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.83%	0.23%	+0.60%

Volatility

DAUG vs. XBAP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - August (DAUG) is 1.36%, while Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - April (XBAP) has a volatility of 1.57%. This indicates that DAUG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XBAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DAUG	XBAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.36%	1.57%	-0.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.49%	2.94%	+1.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.60%	3.62%	+1.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.07%	9.98%	-1.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.25%	9.84%	-0.59%

DAUG vs. XBAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

DAUG vs. XBAP - Dividend Comparison

Neither DAUG nor XBAP has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DAUG and XBAP in my portfolio?

DAUG and XBAP have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DAUG or XBAP?

XBAP has higher volatility (1.57%) compared to DAUG (1.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DAUG dropped -15.34% vs XBAP's -14.57%.

Which ETF is better, DAUG or XBAP?

On 5-year performance, XBAP leads with 9.51% vs 6.27% for DAUG. On fees, XBAP is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, DAUG has been the lower-risk option at 1.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DAUG or XBAP?

Over the 5-year period, XBAP has performed better with a 9.51% return vs 6.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DAUG or XBAP?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between DAUG and XBAP?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XBAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.06 vs 2.48), 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.