PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
NAPR vs. QBUF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

NAPR vs. QBUF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April (NAPR) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NAPR achieves a 10.51% return, which is significantly higher than QBUF's 4.68% return.


NAPR

1D
-0.12%
1M
2.09%
YTD
10.51%
6M
11.15%
1Y
18.45%
3Y*
13.26%
5Y*
10.10%
10Y*

QBUF

1D
-0.01%
1M
0.84%
YTD
4.68%
6M
4.57%
1Y
11.93%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

NAPR vs. QBUF - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between NAPR and QBUF is 0.72, 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

0.72

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2024

0.81

The correlation between NAPR and QBUF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

NAPR vs. QBUF - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
NAPR
QBUF

Technology

50.7%
50.7%

Communication Services

15.8%
15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

12.5%
12.5%

Consumer Defensive

8.7%
8.7%

Healthcare

5.1%
5.1%

Industrials

3.3%
3.3%

Utilities

1.6%
1.6%

Basic Materials

1.3%
1.3%

Energy

0.7%
0.7%

Financial Services

0.2%
0.2%

Real Estate

0.1%
0.1%

Technology

NAPR
50.7%
QBUF
50.7%

Communication Services

NAPR
15.8%
QBUF
15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

NAPR
12.5%
QBUF
12.5%

Consumer Defensive

NAPR
8.7%
QBUF
8.7%

Healthcare

NAPR
5.1%
QBUF
5.1%

Industrials

NAPR
3.3%
QBUF
3.3%

Utilities

NAPR
1.6%
QBUF
1.6%

Basic Materials

NAPR
1.3%
QBUF
1.3%

Energy

NAPR
0.7%
QBUF
0.7%

Financial Services

NAPR
0.2%
QBUF
0.2%

Real Estate

NAPR
0.1%
QBUF
0.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

NAPR vs. QBUF — Risk / Return Rank

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

NAPR
NAPR Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
NAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
NAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
NAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 9898
Calmar Ratio Rank
NAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 9898
Martin Ratio Rank

QBUF
QBUF Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
QBUF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QBUF Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
QBUF Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
QBUF Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
QBUF Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

NAPR vs. QBUF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April (NAPR) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF). 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.


NAPRQBUFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+2.50

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+5.45

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

2.18

1.48

+0.71

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

14.95

5.19

+9.76

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

84.84

17.79

+67.05

NAPR vs. QBUF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NAPR Sharpe Ratio is 4.78, which is higher than the QBUF Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NAPR and QBUF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


NAPRQBUFDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.78

2.28

+2.50

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.90

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.07

1.36

-0.29

Drawdowns

NAPR vs. QBUF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NAPR drawdown since its inception was -16.53%, which is greater than QBUF's maximum drawdown of -8.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NAPR and QBUF.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


NAPRQBUFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-16.53%

-8.84%

-7.69%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-1.24%

-2.31%

+1.07%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.52%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-16.53%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.12%

-0.01%

-0.11%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.28%

-0.82%

-1.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.22%

0.67%

-0.45%

Volatility

NAPR vs. QBUF - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April (NAPR) has a higher volatility of 1.10% compared to Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF) at 0.23%. This indicates that NAPR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QBUF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


NAPRQBUFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.10%

0.23%

+0.87%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.82%

3.88%

-1.06%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.89%

5.25%

-1.36%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.27%

8.47%

+2.80%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.61%

8.47%

+2.14%

NAPR vs. QBUF - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both NAPR and QBUF have an expense ratio of 0.79%.


Dividends

NAPR vs. QBUF - Dividend Comparison

Neither NAPR nor QBUF has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


NAPR and QBUF 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.

NAPR has higher volatility (1.10%) compared to QBUF (0.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NAPR dropped -16.53% vs QBUF's -8.84%.

On 1-year performance, NAPR leads with 18.45% vs 11.93% for QBUF. Both ETFs have the same 0.79% expense ratio. On volatility, QBUF has been the lower-risk option at 0.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, NAPR has performed better with a 18.45% return vs 11.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

NAPR and QBUF have the same expense ratio: 0.79% per year.

NAPR and QBUF have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

NAPR tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while QBUF tracks Invesco QQQ Trust.

NAPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.78 vs 2.28), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for NAPR and QBUF

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer