EOCT vs. BAPR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EOCT (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October) and BAPR (Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - April) are both exchange-traded funds - EOCT is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Innovator, while BAPR is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the Cboe S&P 500 Buffer Protect Index April. EOCT is actively managed, while BAPR is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EOCT returned 13.40%/yr vs 15.31%/yr for BAPR. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EOCT charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for BAPR.

Performance

EOCT vs. BAPR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT) and Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - April (BAPR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EOCT achieves a 7.70% return, which is significantly lower than BAPR's 10.81% return.

EOCT

• 1D: -0.22%
• 1M: 1.29%
• YTD: 7.70%
• 6M: 9.20%
• 1Y: 25.27%
• 3Y*: 13.40%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAPR

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 2.21%
• YTD: 10.81%
• 6M: 11.74%
• 1Y: 20.12%
• 3Y*: 15.31%
• 5Y*: 11.17%
• 10Y*: —

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

EOCT vs. BAPR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EOCT Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October	7.70%	22.03%	9.66%	6.26%	-10.75%	-0.50%
BAPR Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - April	10.81%	8.28%	15.95%	23.16%	-7.04%	4.13%

Correlation

The correlation between EOCT and BAPR is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 4, 2021	0.63

The correlation between EOCT and BAPR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

EOCT vs. BAPR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EOCT	BAPR
Technology	37.0%	36.2%
Financial Services	19.4%	11.9%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	10.1%
Industrials	7.5%	8.1%
Communication Services	6.9%	10.9%
Basic Materials	6.5%	1.8%
Energy	4.0%	3.5%
Consumer Defensive	3.0%	4.9%
Healthcare	2.9%	8.4%
Utilities	2.1%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.1%	1.9%

Return for Risk

EOCT vs. BAPR — Risk / Return Rank

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

EOCT

EOCT Risk / Return Rank: 85
EOCT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
EOCT Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
EOCT Omega Ratio Rank: 87
EOCT Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
EOCT Martin Ratio Rank: 84

BAPR

BAPR Risk / Return Rank: 96
BAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
BAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
BAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
BAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
BAPR 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.

EOCT vs. BAPR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT) and Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - April (BAPR). 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.

	EOCT	BAPR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.80	3.59	-0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.92	6.11	-2.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.54	1.87	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.28	10.46	-6.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.18	57.55	-40.37
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EOCT vs. BAPR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EOCT Sharpe Ratio is 2.80, which is comparable to the BAPR Sharpe Ratio of 3.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EOCT and BAPR, 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

	EOCT	BAPR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.80	3.59	-0.79
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.98	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.61	0.84	-0.23

Drawdowns

EOCT vs. BAPR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EOCT drawdown since its inception was -20.35%, smaller than the maximum BAPR drawdown of -23.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EOCT and BAPR.

Drawdown Indicators

	EOCT	BAPR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.35%	-23.91%	+3.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.93%	-1.93%	-4.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.76%	-15.58%	+4.82%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-15.58%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.22%	-0.23%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.69%	-2.59%	-3.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.47%	0.35%	+1.12%

Volatility

EOCT vs. BAPR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT) has a higher volatility of 1.78% compared to Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - April (BAPR) at 1.06%. This indicates that EOCT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BAPR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EOCT	BAPR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.78%	1.06%	+0.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.69%	4.53%	+2.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.06%	5.64%	+3.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.31%	11.49%	-0.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.31%	13.12%	-1.81%

EOCT vs. BAPR - Expense Ratio Comparison

EOCT has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than BAPR's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

EOCT vs. BAPR - Dividend Comparison

Neither EOCT nor BAPR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EOCT and BAPR in my portfolio?

EOCT and BAPR have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EOCT or BAPR?

EOCT has higher volatility (1.78%) compared to BAPR (1.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EOCT dropped -20.35% vs BAPR's -23.91%.

Which ETF is better, EOCT or BAPR?

On 3-year performance, BAPR leads with 15.31% vs 13.40% for EOCT. On fees, BAPR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, BAPR has been the lower-risk option at 1.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EOCT or BAPR?

Over the 3-year period, BAPR has performed better with a 15.31% return vs 13.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EOCT or BAPR?

BAPR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for EOCT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EOCT or BAPR?

EOCT and BAPR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between EOCT and BAPR?

EOCT is categorized as Options Trading, while BAPR is Defined Outcome. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for EOCT and 0.79% for BAPR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.59 vs 2.80), 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.