EJAN vs. QFLR

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

EJAN (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF January) and QFLR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EJAN is a Volatility Hedged Equity fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, while QFLR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Innovator. EJAN is passively managed, while QFLR is actively managed. Over the past year, EJAN returned 16.24% vs 26.98% for QFLR. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.89% expense ratio.

Performance

EJAN vs. QFLR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF January (EJAN) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with EJAN having a 6.81% return and QFLR slightly higher at 6.90%.

EJAN

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 1.26%
• YTD: 6.81%
• 6M: 7.51%
• 1Y: 16.24%
• 3Y*: 8.61%
• 5Y*: 3.11%
• 10Y*: —

QFLR

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 3.99%
• YTD: 6.90%
• 6M: 5.88%
• 1Y: 26.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EJAN vs. QFLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EJAN Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF January	6.81%	14.78%	4.99%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	6.90%	17.27%	16.64%

Correlation

The correlation between EJAN and QFLR 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 26, 2024	0.55

The correlation between EJAN and QFLR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

EJAN vs. QFLR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EJAN	QFLR
Technology	37.0%	50.8%
Financial Services	19.4%	0.9%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	12.1%
Industrials	7.5%	2.8%
Communication Services	6.9%	18.4%
Basic Materials	6.5%	0.0%
Energy	4.0%	1.1%
Consumer Defensive	3.0%	9.2%
Healthcare	2.9%	3.2%
Utilities	2.1%	1.5%
Real Estate	1.1%	-

Return for Risk

EJAN vs. QFLR — Risk / Return Rank

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

EJAN

EJAN Risk / Return Rank: 63
EJAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
EJAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
EJAN Omega Ratio Rank: 79
EJAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
EJAN Martin Ratio Rank: 63

QFLR

QFLR Risk / Return Rank: 74
QFLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QFLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
QFLR Omega Ratio Rank: 74
QFLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
QFLR Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

EJAN vs. QFLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF January (EJAN) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). 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.

	EJAN	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.06	2.41	-0.34
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.99	3.26	-0.27
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.44	+0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.49	3.56	-1.07
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.66	15.19	-3.53
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EJAN vs. QFLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EJAN Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is comparable to the QFLR Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EJAN and QFLR, 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

	EJAN	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.06	2.41	-0.34
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.28	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.36	1.40	-1.04

Drawdowns

EJAN vs. QFLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EJAN drawdown since its inception was -22.23%, which is greater than QFLR's maximum drawdown of -13.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EJAN and QFLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	EJAN	QFLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.23%	-13.97%	-8.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.63%	-7.61%	+0.98%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.75%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.00%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.06%	-0.48%	+0.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.79%	-2.50%	-3.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.42%	1.78%	-0.36%

Volatility

EJAN vs. QFLR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF January (EJAN) is 2.10%, while Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) has a volatility of 2.53%. This indicates that EJAN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QFLR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EJAN	QFLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.10%	2.53%	-0.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.28%	8.05%	-0.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.91%	11.28%	-3.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.11%	12.62%	-1.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.69%	12.62%	+0.07%

EJAN vs. QFLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both EJAN and QFLR have an expense ratio of 0.89%.

Dividends

EJAN vs. QFLR - Dividend Comparison

Neither EJAN nor QFLR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
EJAN Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF January	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	0.00%	0.02%	0.03%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EJAN and QFLR in my portfolio?

EJAN and QFLR 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, EJAN or QFLR?

QFLR has higher volatility (2.53%) compared to EJAN (2.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EJAN dropped -22.23% vs QFLR's -13.97%.

Which ETF is better, EJAN or QFLR?

On 1-year performance, QFLR leads with 26.98% vs 16.24% for EJAN. Both ETFs have the same 0.89% expense ratio. On volatility, EJAN has been the lower-risk option at 2.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EJAN or QFLR?

Over the 1-year period, QFLR has performed better with a 26.98% return vs 16.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EJAN or QFLR?

EJAN and QFLR have the same expense ratio: 0.89% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EJAN or QFLR?

EJAN and QFLR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between EJAN and QFLR?

EJAN is categorized as Volatility Hedged Equity, while QFLR is Nasdaq-100.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QFLR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 vs 2.06), 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.