EAPR vs. QDEC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

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 4.84%/yr vs 10.15%/yr for QDEC. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EAPR charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QDEC.

Performance

EAPR vs. QDEC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) and FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EAPR achieves a 9.33% return, which is significantly higher than QDEC's 7.96% return.

EAPR

• 1D: -2.64%
• 1M: -0.09%
• YTD: 9.33%
• 6M: 9.33%
• 1Y: 18.07%
• 3Y*: 9.89%
• 5Y*: 4.84%
• 10Y*: —

QDEC

• 1D: -1.24%
• 1M: -0.54%
• YTD: 7.96%
• 6M: 7.20%
• 1Y: 22.88%
• 3Y*: 16.64%
• 5Y*: 10.15%
• 10Y*: —

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

EAPR vs. QDEC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	9.33%	14.80%	2.86%	8.19%	-5.01%	-2.89%
QDEC FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December	7.96%	18.12%	16.40%	29.29%	-22.26%	14.77%

Correlation

The correlation between EAPR and QDEC is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.54
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.56
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 0.54 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EAPR vs. QDEC — Risk / Return Rank

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

EAPR

EAPR Risk / Return Rank: 84
EAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
EAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
EAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 92
EAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
EAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 94

QDEC

QDEC Risk / Return Rank: 76
QDEC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
QDEC Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
QDEC Omega Ratio Rank: 79
QDEC Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
QDEC Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

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 ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	2.27	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.11	3.19	-0.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.43	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.65	3.03	+1.62
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	25.14	14.26	+10.88

EAPR vs. QDEC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EAPR Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the QDEC Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EAPR and QDEC, 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

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	EAPR	QDEC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.65%	-25.25%	+7.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.90%	-7.58%	+3.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.24%	-16.08%	+5.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.65%	-25.25%	+7.60%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.64%	-1.65%	-0.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.04%	-4.99%	+0.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.72%	1.61%	-0.89%

Volatility

EAPR vs. QDEC - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) has a higher volatility of 5.46% compared to FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) at 3.28%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	EAPR	QDEC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.46%	3.28%	+2.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.07%	7.91%	+0.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.68%	10.17%	-1.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.33%	14.75%	-4.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.21%	14.60%	-4.39%

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.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EAPR and QDEC in my portfolio?

EAPR and QDEC have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EAPR or QDEC?

EAPR has higher volatility (5.46%) compared to QDEC (3.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EAPR dropped -17.65% vs QDEC's -25.25%.

Which ETF is better, EAPR or QDEC?

On 5-year performance, QDEC leads with 10.15% vs 4.84% for EAPR. On fees, EAPR is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, QDEC has been the lower-risk option at 3.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EAPR or QDEC?

Over the 5-year period, QDEC has performed better with a 10.15% return vs 4.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EAPR or QDEC?

EAPR is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QDEC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EAPR or QDEC?

EAPR and QDEC have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between EAPR and QDEC?

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.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QDEC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 2.09), 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.