EOCT vs. FJUL

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

EOCT (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October) and FJUL (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July) are both Options Trading funds. EOCT is actively managed, while FJUL is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EOCT returned 11.93%/yr vs 14.53%/yr for FJUL. Their 0.64 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. EOCT charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for FJUL.

Performance

EOCT vs. FJUL - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with EOCT having a 7.93% return and FJUL slightly lower at 7.54%.

EOCT

• 1D: 0.23%
• 1M: 0.95%
• 6M: 4.63%
• YTD: 7.93%
• 1Y: 21.16%
• 3Y*: 11.93%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.69%

FJUL

• 1D: 0.47%
• 1M: 0.86%
• 6M: 6.71%
• YTD: 7.54%
• 1Y: 14.82%
• 3Y*: 14.53%
• 5Y*: 11.47%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.97%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
EOCT Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October	$186.77K	$163.84K	$278.32K
FJUL FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July	$4.22M	$3.10M	$2.24M

EOCT vs. FJUL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EOCT Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October	7.93%	22.03%	9.66%	6.26%	-10.75%	-0.22%
FJUL FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July	7.54%	14.19%	17.65%	21.33%	-6.25%	5.63%

Correlation

The correlation between EOCT and FJUL is 0.69, 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.	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2021	0.64

The correlation between EOCT and FJUL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EOCT vs. FJUL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

EOCT

EOCT Risk / Return Rank: 89
EOCT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
EOCT Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
EOCT Omega Ratio Rank: 91
EOCT Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
EOCT Martin Ratio Rank: 89

FJUL

FJUL Risk / Return Rank: 85
FJUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
FJUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FJUL Omega Ratio Rank: 89
FJUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
FJUL Martin Ratio Rank: 90

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

EOCT vs. FJUL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July (FJUL). 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.

	EOCT	FJUL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.23	2.01	+0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.11	2.89	+0.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.40	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.47	2.71	+0.76
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.92	14.19	-0.27

EOCT vs. FJUL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EOCT Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is comparable to the FJUL Sharpe Ratio of 2.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EOCT and FJUL, 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

EOCT vs. FJUL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EOCT drawdown since its inception was -20.35%, which is greater than FJUL's maximum drawdown of -13.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EOCT and FJUL.

Drawdown Indicators

	EOCT	FJUL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.35%	-13.08%	-7.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.93%	-5.10%	-0.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.54%	-13.08%	+4.54%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-13.08%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.37%	0.00%	-0.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.53%	-1.83%	-3.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.47%	0.97%	+0.50%

Volatility

EOCT vs. FJUL - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT) has a higher volatility of 2.76% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July (FJUL) at 1.92%. This indicates that EOCT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FJUL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EOCT	FJUL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.76%	1.92%	+0.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.41%	5.26%	+2.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.23%	6.87%	+2.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.26%	10.97%	+0.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.26%	10.47%	+0.79%

EOCT vs. FJUL - Expense Ratio Comparison

EOCT has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than FJUL's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

EOCT vs. FJUL - Dividend Comparison

Neither EOCT nor FJUL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EOCT and FJUL in my portfolio?

EOCT and FJUL have a correlation of 0.69, 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 FJUL?

EOCT has higher volatility (2.76%) compared to FJUL (1.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EOCT dropped -20.35% vs FJUL's -13.08%.

Which ETF is better, EOCT or FJUL?

On 3-year performance, FJUL leads with 14.53% vs 11.93% for EOCT. On fees, FJUL is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, FJUL has been the lower-risk option at 1.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EOCT or FJUL?

Over the 3-year period, FJUL has performed better with a 14.53% return vs 11.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EOCT or FJUL?

FJUL is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for EOCT.

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

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

What is the main difference between EOCT and FJUL?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for EOCT and 0.85% for FJUL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EOCT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 2.01), 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.