EOCT vs. QFLR

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR).

EOCT and QFLR are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. EOCT is an actively managed fund by Innovator. It was launched on Sep 30, 2021. QFLR is an actively managed fund by Innovator. It was launched on Jan 24, 2024.

Performance

EOCT vs. QFLR - 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 Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

EOCT vs. QFLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EOCT Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October	0.91%	22.03%	12.17%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	-2.86%	17.27%	16.64%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EOCT achieves a 0.91% return, which is significantly higher than QFLR's -2.86% return.

EOCT

• 1D: 1.81%
• 1M: -4.00%
• YTD: 0.91%
• 6M: 2.77%
• 1Y: 19.93%
• 3Y*: 11.33%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QFLR

• 1D: 2.40%
• 1M: -3.49%
• YTD: -2.86%
• 6M: 0.45%
• 1Y: 23.29%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EOCT vs. QFLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

EOCT

Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October

QFLR

Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF

Return for Risk

EOCT vs. QFLR — Risk / Return Rank

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

EOCT

EOCT Risk / Return Rank: 90
EOCT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
EOCT Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
EOCT Omega Ratio Rank: 90
EOCT Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
EOCT Martin Ratio Rank: 92

QFLR

QFLR Risk / Return Rank: 90
QFLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
QFLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
QFLR Omega Ratio Rank: 88
QFLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
QFLR Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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. QFLR - 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 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.

	EOCT	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.91	1.90	+0.01
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.67	2.61	+0.07
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.36	+0.03
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.04	3.03	+0.02
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.67	13.18	-0.52
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. QFLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EOCT Sharpe Ratio is 1.91, which is comparable to the QFLR Sharpe Ratio of 1.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EOCT and QFLR, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EOCT	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.91	1.90	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.49	1.09	-0.60

Correlation

The correlation between EOCT and QFLR is 0.59, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

EOCT vs. QFLR - Dividend Comparison

Neither EOCT nor QFLR has paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024
EOCT Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	0.00%	0.02%	0.03%

Drawdowns

EOCT vs. QFLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EOCT drawdown since its inception was -20.35%, which is greater than QFLR's maximum drawdown of -13.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EOCT and QFLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	EOCT	QFLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.35%	-13.97%	-6.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.57%	-7.61%	+1.04%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.23%	-5.40%	+1.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.88%	-2.61%	-3.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.58%	1.75%	-0.17%

Volatility

EOCT vs. QFLR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) have volatilities of 4.79% and 4.93%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EOCT	QFLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.79%	4.93%	-0.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.68%	9.48%	-2.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.48%	12.31%	-1.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.41%	12.90%	-1.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.41%	12.90%	-1.49%