IFEB vs. EOCT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IFEB (Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - February) and EOCT (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October) are both Options Trading funds from Innovator. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, IFEB returned 10.26% vs 25.27% for EOCT. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IFEB charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EOCT.

Performance

IFEB vs. EOCT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - February (IFEB) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IFEB achieves a 2.84% return, which is significantly lower than EOCT's 7.70% return.

IFEB

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 1.98%
• YTD: 2.84%
• 6M: 3.95%
• 1Y: 10.26%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EOCT

• 1D: -0.22%
• 1M: 1.29%
• YTD: 7.70%
• 6M: 9.20%
• 1Y: 25.27%
• 3Y*: 13.40%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IFEB vs. EOCT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IFEB Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - February	2.84%	19.46%	0.54%
EOCT Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October	7.70%	22.03%	12.17%

Correlation

The correlation between IFEB and EOCT is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2024	0.69

The correlation between IFEB and EOCT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

IFEB vs. EOCT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IFEB	EOCT
Financial Services	24.7%	19.4%
Industrials	19.8%	7.5%
Healthcare	10.6%	2.9%
Technology	10.3%	37.0%
Consumer Cyclical	7.7%	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	3.0%
Basic Materials	5.9%	6.5%
Communication Services	4.5%	6.9%
Energy	4.0%	4.0%
Utilities	4.0%	2.1%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.1%

Return for Risk

IFEB vs. EOCT — Risk / Return Rank

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

IFEB

IFEB Risk / Return Rank: 39
IFEB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
IFEB Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
IFEB Omega Ratio Rank: 45
IFEB Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
IFEB Martin Ratio Rank: 41

EOCT

EOCT Risk / Return Rank: 85
EOCT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
EOCT Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
EOCT Omega Ratio Rank: 87
EOCT Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
EOCT Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

IFEB vs. EOCT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - February (IFEB) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT). 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.

	IFEB	EOCT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.37	2.80	-1.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.99	3.92	-1.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.54	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.59	4.28	-2.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.51	17.18	-10.67
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IFEB vs. EOCT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IFEB Sharpe Ratio is 1.37, which is lower than the EOCT Sharpe Ratio of 2.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IFEB and EOCT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IFEB	EOCT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.37	2.80	-1.44
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.05	0.61	+0.44

Drawdowns

IFEB vs. EOCT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IFEB drawdown since its inception was -8.84%, smaller than the maximum EOCT drawdown of -20.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IFEB and EOCT.

Drawdown Indicators

	IFEB	EOCT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.84%	-20.35%	+11.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.47%	-5.93%	-0.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-10.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.41%	-0.22%	-0.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.68%	-5.69%	+4.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.58%	1.47%	+0.11%

Volatility

IFEB vs. EOCT - Volatility Comparison

Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - February (IFEB) has a higher volatility of 2.58% compared to Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT) at 1.78%. This indicates that IFEB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EOCT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IFEB	EOCT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.58%	1.78%	+0.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.52%	6.69%	-0.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.55%	9.06%	-1.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.09%	11.31%	-2.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.09%	11.31%	-2.22%

IFEB vs. EOCT - Expense Ratio Comparison

IFEB has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than EOCT's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

IFEB vs. EOCT - Dividend Comparison

Neither IFEB nor EOCT has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IFEB and EOCT in my portfolio?

IFEB and EOCT have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IFEB or EOCT?

IFEB has higher volatility (2.58%) compared to EOCT (1.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IFEB dropped -8.84% vs EOCT's -20.35%.

Which ETF is better, IFEB or EOCT?

On 1-year performance, EOCT leads with 25.27% vs 10.26% for IFEB. On fees, IFEB is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, EOCT has been the lower-risk option at 1.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IFEB or EOCT?

Over the 1-year period, EOCT has performed better with a 25.27% return vs 10.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IFEB or EOCT?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between IFEB and EOCT?

Their fees differ too: 0.85% for IFEB and 0.89% for EOCT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EOCT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 1.37), 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.