FEBT vs. QFLR

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR).

FEBT and QFLR are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. FEBT is an actively managed fund by Allianz. It was launched on Feb 1, 2023. QFLR is an actively managed fund by Innovator. It was launched on Jan 24, 2024.

Performance

FEBT vs. QFLR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

FEBT vs. QFLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	-1.69%	12.72%	14.75%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	-2.86%	17.27%	16.64%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEBT achieves a -1.69% return, which is significantly higher than QFLR's -2.86% return.

FEBT

• 1D: 2.03%
• 1M: -3.34%
• YTD: -1.69%
• 6M: 1.12%
• 1Y: 14.62%
• 3Y*: 14.14%
• 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)

FEBT vs. QFLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEBT has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than QFLR's 0.89% expense ratio.

QFLR

Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF

FEBT

Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF

Return for Risk

FEBT vs. QFLR — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEBT

FEBT Risk / Return Rank: 70
FEBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
FEBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
FEBT Omega Ratio Rank: 74
FEBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
FEBT Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

FEBT vs. QFLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) 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.

	FEBT	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.17	1.90	-0.73
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.76	2.61	-0.85
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.36	-0.08
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.70	3.03	-1.32
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	8.88	13.18	-4.30
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FEBT vs. QFLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBT Sharpe Ratio is 1.17, which is lower than the QFLR Sharpe Ratio of 1.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBT 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

	FEBT	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.17	1.90	-0.73
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.37	1.09	+0.29

Correlation

The correlation between FEBT and QFLR is 0.83, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

FEBT vs. QFLR - Dividend Comparison

Neither FEBT nor QFLR has paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.28%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	0.00%	0.02%	0.03%

Drawdowns

FEBT vs. QFLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBT drawdown since its inception was -13.19%, smaller than the maximum QFLR drawdown of -13.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBT and QFLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBT	QFLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.19%	-13.97%	+0.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.86%	-7.61%	-1.25%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.13%	-5.40%	+1.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.22%	-2.61%	+1.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.70%	1.75%	-0.05%

Volatility

FEBT vs. QFLR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) is 3.88%, while Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) has a volatility of 4.93%. This indicates that FEBT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QFLR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FEBT	QFLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.88%	4.93%	-1.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.11%	9.48%	-3.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.59%	12.31%	+0.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.88%	12.90%	-3.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.88%	12.90%	-3.02%