EPRF vs. CAOS

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

EPRF (Innovator S&P High Quality Preferred ETF) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EPRF is a Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds fund tracking the S&P U.S. High Quality Preferred Stock Index, while CAOS is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. EPRF is passively managed, while CAOS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, EPRF returned 3.16%/yr vs 3.60%/yr for CAOS. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EPRF charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.

Performance

EPRF vs. CAOS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator S&P High Quality Preferred ETF (EPRF) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EPRF achieves a -2.15% return, which is significantly lower than CAOS's 0.80% return.

EPRF

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: -0.76%
• 6M: -4.59%
• YTD: -2.15%
• 1Y: -1.05%
• 3Y*: 3.16%
• 5Y*: -2.02%
• 10Y*: —

CAOS

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 0.13%
• 6M: 0.30%
• YTD: 0.80%
• 1Y: 1.82%
• 3Y*: 3.60%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EPRF vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EPRF Innovator S&P High Quality Preferred ETF	-2.15%	2.69%	3.46%	0.54%
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.80%	2.55%	5.33%	7.43%

Correlation

The correlation between EPRF and CAOS is -0.27, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.27
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2023	0.04

The correlation between EPRF and CAOS shifts across timeframes, from -0.27 (1 year) to 0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

EPRF vs. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank

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

EPRF

EPRF Risk / Return Rank: 8
EPRF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
EPRF Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
EPRF Omega Ratio Rank: 7
EPRF Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
EPRF Martin Ratio Rank: 8

CAOS

CAOS Risk / Return Rank: 46
CAOS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
CAOS Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
CAOS Omega Ratio Rank: 45
CAOS Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
CAOS Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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.

EPRF vs. CAOS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator S&P High Quality Preferred ETF (EPRF) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). 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.

	EPRF	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.14	1.19	-1.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.15	1.88	-2.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.98	1.24	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.12	2.41	-2.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.23	5.44	-5.66

EPRF vs. CAOS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EPRF Sharpe Ratio is -0.14, which is lower than the CAOS Sharpe Ratio of 1.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EPRF and CAOS, 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

EPRF vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EPRF drawdown since its inception was -26.82%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EPRF and CAOS.

Drawdown Indicators

	EPRF	CAOS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.82%	-3.89%	-22.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.59%	-0.76%	-7.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.29%	-3.60%	-8.69%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.23%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.84%	-1.08%	-9.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.42%	-0.92%	-6.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.61%	0.34%	+4.27%

Volatility

EPRF vs. CAOS - Volatility Comparison

Innovator S&P High Quality Preferred ETF (EPRF) has a higher volatility of 2.31% compared to Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) at 0.48%. This indicates that EPRF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAOS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EPRF	CAOS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.31%	0.48%	+1.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.57%	1.09%	+4.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.45%	1.55%	+5.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.85%	4.20%	+7.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.42%	4.20%	+9.22%

EPRF vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison

EPRF has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

EPRF vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison

EPRF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.17%, while CAOS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EPRF Innovator S&P High Quality Preferred ETF	6.17%	6.03%	6.13%	5.71%	5.67%	4.70%	4.92%	5.01%	5.27%	2.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EPRF and CAOS in my portfolio?

EPRF and CAOS have a correlation of -0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EPRF or CAOS?

EPRF has higher volatility (2.31%) compared to CAOS (0.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EPRF dropped -26.82% vs CAOS's -3.89%.

Which ETF is better, EPRF or CAOS?

On 3-year performance, CAOS leads with 3.60% vs 3.16% for EPRF. On fees, EPRF is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EPRF or CAOS?

Over the 3-year period, CAOS has performed better with a 3.60% return vs 3.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EPRF or CAOS?

EPRF is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.63% for CAOS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EPRF or CAOS?

EPRF has the higher dividend yield at 6.17%, compared with 0.00% for CAOS.

What is the main difference between EPRF and CAOS?

EPRF is categorized as Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds, while CAOS is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for EPRF and 0.63% for CAOS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CAOS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.19 vs -0.14), 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.