EAPR vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EAPR (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - EAPR is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. EAPR is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, EAPR returned 5.15%/yr vs 12.13%/yr for QMAR. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EAPR charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

EAPR vs. QMAR - 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 Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EAPR achieves a 11.39% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

EAPR

• 1D: -0.45%
• 1M: 2.01%
• YTD: 11.39%
• 6M: 12.25%
• 1Y: 22.07%
• 3Y*: 10.62%
• 5Y*: 5.15%
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 2.81%
• YTD: 13.06%
• 6M: 14.01%
• 1Y: 23.38%
• 3Y*: 16.73%
• 5Y*: 12.13%
• 10Y*: —

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

EAPR vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	11.39%	14.80%	2.86%	8.19%	-5.01%	-2.80%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-16.56%	10.83%

Correlation

The correlation between EAPR and QMAR 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	0.53
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 5, 2021	0.54

The correlation between EAPR and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

EAPR vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EAPR	QMAR
Technology	36.9%	54.2%
Financial Services	19.5%	0.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	12.2%
Industrials	7.5%	2.8%
Communication Services	6.9%	15.5%
Basic Materials	6.5%	1.2%
Energy	4.1%	0.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.0%	7.6%
Healthcare	2.9%	4.2%
Utilities	2.1%	1.4%
Real Estate	1.1%	0.1%

Return for Risk

EAPR vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

EAPR

EAPR Risk / Return Rank: 94
EAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
EAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
EAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
EAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
EAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 96
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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. QMAR - 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 Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). 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.

	EAPR	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.06	3.86	-0.80
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	5.25	6.05	-0.80
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.84	1.93	-0.09
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.33	7.31	+0.02
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	42.15	52.66	-10.51
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EAPR vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EAPR Sharpe Ratio is 3.06, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EAPR and QMAR, 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

	EAPR	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.06	3.86	-0.80
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51	0.87	-0.36
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	0.91	-0.36

Drawdowns

EAPR vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EAPR drawdown since its inception was -17.65%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EAPR and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	EAPR	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.65%	-19.83%	+2.18%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.02%	-3.21%	+0.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.24%	-15.91%	+5.67%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.65%	-19.83%	+2.18%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.45%	-0.19%	-0.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.06%	-3.28%	-0.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.52%	0.45%	+0.07%

Volatility

EAPR vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) has a higher volatility of 3.79% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 1.27%. This indicates that EAPR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EAPR	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.79%	1.27%	+2.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.28%	4.85%	+1.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.24%	6.09%	+1.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.09%	13.97%	-3.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.02%	13.85%	-3.83%

EAPR vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

EAPR has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

EAPR vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither EAPR nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EAPR and QMAR in my portfolio?

EAPR and QMAR 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 QMAR?

EAPR has higher volatility (3.79%) compared to QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EAPR dropped -17.65% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, EAPR or QMAR?

On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 12.13% vs 5.15% for EAPR. On fees, EAPR is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 1.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EAPR or QMAR?

Over the 5-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 12.13% return vs 5.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EAPR or QMAR?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between EAPR and QMAR?

EAPR is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for EAPR and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 3.06), 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.