NAPR vs. QCJL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NAPR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April) and QCJL (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. NAPR is passively managed, while QCJL is actively managed. Over the past year, NAPR returned 18.45% vs 14.69% for QCJL. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NAPR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QCJL.

Performance

NAPR vs. QCJL - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NAPR achieves a 10.51% return, which is significantly higher than QCJL's 5.15% return.

NAPR

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

QCJL

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 1.24%
• YTD: 5.15%
• 6M: 5.61%
• 1Y: 14.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NAPR vs. QCJL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NAPR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April	10.51%	6.56%	5.45%
QCJL FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July	5.15%	13.10%	4.12%

Correlation

The correlation between NAPR and QCJL is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2024	0.87

The correlation between NAPR and QCJL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NAPR vs. QCJL — Risk / Return Rank

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

NAPR

NAPR Risk / Return Rank: 98
NAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
NAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
NAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 98
NAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
NAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

QCJL

QCJL Risk / Return Rank: 81
QCJL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
QCJL Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
QCJL Omega Ratio Rank: 84
QCJL Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
QCJL Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. QCJL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April (NAPR) and FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL). 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.

	NAPR	QCJL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.78	2.51	+2.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	8.66	3.67	+4.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.18	1.51	+0.68
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	14.95	3.69	+11.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	84.84	18.73	+66.11
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NAPR vs. QCJL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NAPR Sharpe Ratio is 4.78, which is higher than the QCJL Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NAPR and QCJL, 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

	NAPR	QCJL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.78	2.51	+2.27
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	1.29	-0.22

Drawdowns

NAPR vs. QCJL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NAPR drawdown since its inception was -16.53%, which is greater than QCJL's maximum drawdown of -11.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NAPR and QCJL.

Drawdown Indicators

	NAPR	QCJL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.53%	-11.18%	-5.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.24%	-4.00%	+2.76%
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%	-0.06%	-0.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.28%	-1.07%	-1.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.22%	0.79%	-0.57%

Volatility

NAPR vs. QCJL - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April (NAPR) has a higher volatility of 1.10% compared to FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) at 0.39%. This indicates that NAPR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QCJL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NAPR	QCJL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.10%	0.39%	+0.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.82%	4.32%	-1.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.89%	5.89%	-2.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.27%	9.48%	+1.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.61%	9.48%	+1.13%

NAPR vs. QCJL - Expense Ratio Comparison

NAPR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than QCJL's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

NAPR vs. QCJL - Dividend Comparison

Neither NAPR nor QCJL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NAPR and QCJL in my portfolio?

NAPR and QCJL have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NAPR or QCJL?

NAPR has higher volatility (1.10%) compared to QCJL (0.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NAPR dropped -16.53% vs QCJL's -11.18%.

Which ETF is better, NAPR or QCJL?

On 1-year performance, NAPR leads with 18.45% vs 14.69% for QCJL. On fees, NAPR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, QCJL has been the lower-risk option at 0.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NAPR or QCJL?

Over the 1-year period, NAPR has performed better with a 18.45% return vs 14.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NAPR or QCJL?

NAPR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCJL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NAPR or QCJL?

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

What is the main difference between NAPR and QCJL?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NAPR and 0.90% for QCJL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NAPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.78 vs 2.51), 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.