EOCT vs. GFEB

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

EOCT (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October) and GFEB (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - February) are both Options Trading funds. EOCT is actively managed, while GFEB is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EOCT returned 12.01%/yr vs 12.05%/yr for GFEB. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EOCT charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for GFEB.

Performance

EOCT vs. GFEB - 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 Moderate Buffer ETF - February (GFEB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EOCT achieves a 7.07% return, which is significantly higher than GFEB's 6.27% return.

EOCT

• 1D: -0.89%
• 1M: -0.14%
• 6M: 4.18%
• YTD: 7.07%
• 1Y: 20.09%
• 3Y*: 12.01%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GFEB

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 0.85%
• 6M: 5.51%
• YTD: 6.27%
• 1Y: 12.70%
• 3Y*: 12.05%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EOCT vs. GFEB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EOCT Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October	7.07%	22.03%	9.66%	2.27%
GFEB FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - February	6.27%	11.19%	13.06%	13.06%

Correlation

The correlation between EOCT and GFEB is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 21, 2023	0.60

The correlation between EOCT and GFEB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EOCT vs. GFEB — 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: 86
EOCT Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
EOCT Omega Ratio Rank: 87
EOCT Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
EOCT Martin Ratio Rank: 85

GFEB

GFEB Risk / Return Rank: 86
GFEB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
GFEB Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
GFEB Omega Ratio Rank: 90
GFEB Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
GFEB Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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. GFEB - 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 Moderate Buffer ETF - February (GFEB). 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	GFEB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.20	2.30	-0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.06	3.40	-0.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.46	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.41	2.86	+0.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.46	15.11	-1.66

EOCT vs. GFEB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EOCT Sharpe Ratio is 2.20, which is comparable to the GFEB Sharpe Ratio of 2.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EOCT and GFEB, 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. GFEB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EOCT drawdown since its inception was -20.35%, which is greater than GFEB's maximum drawdown of -9.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EOCT and GFEB.

Drawdown Indicators

	EOCT	GFEB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.35%	-9.63%	-10.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.93%	-4.46%	-1.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.76%	-9.63%	-1.13%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.16%	-0.37%	-0.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.58%	-0.69%	-4.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.50%	0.84%	+0.66%

Volatility

EOCT vs. GFEB - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT) has a higher volatility of 2.58% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - February (GFEB) at 1.54%. This indicates that EOCT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GFEB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EOCT	GFEB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.58%	1.54%	+1.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.15%	4.53%	+2.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.18%	5.55%	+3.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.28%	7.53%	+3.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.28%	7.53%	+3.75%

EOCT vs. GFEB - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

EOCT vs. GFEB - Dividend Comparison

Neither EOCT nor GFEB has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EOCT and GFEB in my portfolio?

EOCT and GFEB have a correlation of 0.68, 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 GFEB?

EOCT has higher volatility (2.58%) compared to GFEB (1.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EOCT dropped -20.35% vs GFEB's -9.63%.

Which ETF is better, EOCT or GFEB?

On 3-year performance, GFEB leads with 12.05% vs 12.01% for EOCT. On fees, GFEB is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, GFEB has been the lower-risk option at 1.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EOCT or GFEB?

Over the 3-year period, GFEB has performed better with a 12.05% return vs 12.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EOCT or GFEB?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between EOCT and GFEB?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GFEB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.30 vs 2.20), 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.