EOCT vs. QTJA

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

EOCT (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October) and QTJA (Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January) are both Options Trading funds from Innovator. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, EOCT returned 11.93%/yr vs 16.79%/yr for QTJA. Their 0.59 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. EOCT charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for QTJA.

Performance

EOCT vs. QTJA - 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 Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January (QTJA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EOCT achieves a 7.93% return, which is significantly lower than QTJA's 9.74% return.

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%

QTJA

• 1D: 0.62%
• 1M: 0.27%
• 6M: 9.01%
• YTD: 9.74%
• 1Y: 18.97%
• 3Y*: 16.79%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.40%

*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
QTJA Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January	$107.52K	$68.40K	$106.54K

EOCT vs. QTJA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
EOCT Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October	7.93%	22.03%	9.66%	6.26%	-10.75%
QTJA Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January	9.74%	18.86%	18.47%	25.56%	-34.45%

Correlation

The correlation between EOCT and QTJA is 0.72, 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.	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 3, 2022	0.59

The correlation between EOCT and QTJA shifts across timeframes, from 0.58 (3 years) to 0.72 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

EOCT vs. QTJA — 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

QTJA

QTJA Risk / Return Rank: 66
QTJA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
QTJA Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
QTJA Omega Ratio Rank: 74
QTJA Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
QTJA Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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. QTJA - 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 Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January (QTJA). 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	QTJA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.23	1.53	+0.70
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.11	2.22	+0.90
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.31	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.47	1.81	+1.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.92	9.14	+4.79

EOCT vs. QTJA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EOCT Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is higher than the QTJA Sharpe Ratio of 1.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EOCT and QTJA, 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. QTJA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EOCT drawdown since its inception was -20.35%, smaller than the maximum QTJA drawdown of -36.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EOCT and QTJA.

Drawdown Indicators

	EOCT	QTJA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.35%	-36.07%	+15.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.93%	-9.75%	+3.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.54%	-21.73%	+13.19%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.37%	-0.97%	+0.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.53%	-12.86%	+7.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.47%	1.93%	-0.46%

Volatility

EOCT vs. QTJA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT) is 2.76%, while Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January (QTJA) has a volatility of 3.45%. This indicates that EOCT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QTJA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EOCT	QTJA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.76%	3.45%	-0.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.41%	10.41%	-3.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.23%	11.52%	-2.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.26%	20.22%	-8.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.26%	20.22%	-8.96%

EOCT vs. QTJA - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

EOCT vs. QTJA - Dividend Comparison

Neither EOCT nor QTJA has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EOCT and QTJA in my portfolio?

EOCT and QTJA have a correlation of 0.72, 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 QTJA?

QTJA has higher volatility (3.45%) compared to EOCT (2.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EOCT dropped -20.35% vs QTJA's -36.07%.

Which ETF is better, EOCT or QTJA?

On 3-year performance, QTJA leads with 16.79% vs 11.93% for EOCT. On fees, QTJA is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, EOCT has been the lower-risk option at 2.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EOCT or QTJA?

Over the 3-year period, QTJA has performed better with a 16.79% 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 QTJA?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between EOCT and QTJA?

Their fees differ too: 0.89% for EOCT and 0.79% for QTJA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EOCT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 1.53), 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.