EAPR vs. QDEC
EAPR (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April) and QDEC (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December) are both exchange-traded funds - EAPR is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets, while QDEC is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by FT Vest. EAPR is passively managed, while QDEC is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, EAPR returned 5.46%/yr vs 9.74%/yr for QDEC. Their 0.56 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. EAPR charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QDEC.
Performance
EAPR vs. QDEC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EAPR achieves a 9.17% return, which is significantly higher than QDEC's 8.08% return.
EAPR
- 1D
- 0.61%
- 1M
- 0.32%
- 6M
- 8.21%
- YTD
- 9.17%
- 1Y
- 15.75%
- 3Y*
- 8.62%
- 5Y*
- 5.46%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 4.84%
QDEC
- 1D
- 0.51%
- 1M
- -0.28%
- 6M
- 7.23%
- YTD
- 8.08%
- 1Y
- 19.47%
- 3Y*
- 15.79%
- 5Y*
- 9.74%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 10.75%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $354.30K | $262.28K | $462.78K | |
| $1.40M | $874.77K | $1.05M |
EAPR vs. QDEC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April | 9.17% | 14.80% | 2.86% | 8.19% | -5.01% | -2.89% |
QDEC FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December | 8.08% | 18.12% | 16.40% | 29.29% | -22.26% | 14.77% |
Correlation
The correlation between EAPR and QDEC is 0.63, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.63 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.57 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.57 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2021 | 0.56 |
The correlation between EAPR and QDEC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.63 - 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
EAPR vs. QDEC — Risk / Return Rank
EAPR
QDEC
EAPR vs. QDEC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) and FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC). 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.
| EAPR | QDEC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.12 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.11 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.39 | 1.31 | +0.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.90 | 2.36 | +0.54 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.34 | 10.65 | +1.69 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EAPR vs. QDEC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EAPR drawdown since its inception was -17.65%, smaller than the maximum QDEC drawdown of -25.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EAPR and QDEC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EAPR | QDEC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -17.65% | -25.25% | +7.60% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.28% | -7.58% | +2.30% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -10.24% | -16.08% | +5.84% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -16.34% | -25.25% | +8.91% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.78% | -1.54% | -1.24% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.02% | -4.92% | +0.90% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.24% | 1.68% | -0.44% |
Volatility
EAPR vs. QDEC - Volatility Comparison
Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) has a higher volatility of 4.40% compared to FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) at 3.25%. This indicates that EAPR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QDEC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EAPR | QDEC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.40% | 3.25% | +1.15% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.26% | 8.31% | +0.95% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.63% | 10.47% | -0.84% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 10.41% | 14.80% | -4.39% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 10.30% | 14.53% | -4.23% |
EAPR vs. QDEC - Expense Ratio Comparison
EAPR has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is lower than QDEC's 0.90% expense ratio.
Dividends
EAPR vs. QDEC - Dividend Comparison
Neither EAPR nor QDEC has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
EAPR and QDEC have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
EAPR has higher volatility (4.40%) compared to QDEC (3.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EAPR dropped -17.65% vs QDEC's -25.25%.
On 5-year performance, QDEC leads with 9.74% vs 5.46% for EAPR. On fees, EAPR is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, QDEC has been the lower-risk option at 3.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, QDEC has performed better with a 9.74% return vs 5.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EAPR is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QDEC.
EAPR and QDEC have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
EAPR is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QDEC is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for EAPR and 0.90% for QDEC.
QDEC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.71 vs 1.59), 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 EAPR and QDEC
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