NBFR vs. FFTY
NBFR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed 10 Buffer ETF) and FFTY (CapForce IBD 50 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NBFR is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Innovator, while FFTY is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the IBD 50 Index. NBFR is actively managed, while FFTY is passively managed. Their 0.77 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. NBFR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for FFTY.
Performance
NBFR vs. FFTY - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
NBFR
- 1D
- 0.95%
- 1M
- -1.80%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
FFTY
- 1D
- -0.91%
- 1M
- -9.03%
- 6M
- 3.47%
- YTD
- 6.26%
- 1Y
- 13.28%
- 3Y*
- 13.48%
- 5Y*
- -2.78%
- 10Y*
- 5.57%
- ALL TIME*
- 4.04%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $863.41K | $1.19M | $1.59M | |
| $83.82K | $58.88K | $223.65K |
NBFR vs. FFTY - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
NBFR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed 10 Buffer ETF | 3.36% |
FFTY CapForce IBD 50 ETF | -7.04% |
Correlation
The correlation between NBFR and FFTY is 0.77, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2026 | 0.77 |
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
NBFR vs. FFTY — Risk / Return Rank
NBFR
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
FFTY
NBFR vs. FFTY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed 10 Buffer ETF (NBFR) and CapForce IBD 50 ETF (FFTY). 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.
| NBFR | FFTY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.07 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 0.41 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 1.00 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
NBFR vs. FFTY - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NBFR drawdown since its inception was -8.49%, smaller than the maximum FFTY drawdown of -59.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBFR and FFTY.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| NBFR | FFTY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -8.49% | -59.46% | +50.97% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -23.29% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -29.60% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -59.46% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -59.46% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.58% | -25.10% | +20.52% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.05% | -22.32% | +20.27% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 9.51% | — |
Volatility
NBFR vs. FFTY - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| NBFR | FFTY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 8.45% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 29.16% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.83% | 36.53% | -19.70% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.83% | 29.75% | -12.92% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.83% | 27.79% | -10.96% |
NBFR vs. FFTY - Expense Ratio Comparison
NBFR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than FFTY's 0.80% expense ratio.
Dividends
NBFR vs. FFTY - Dividend Comparison
NBFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.02%, less than FFTY's 1.27% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FFTY CapForce IBD 50 ETF | 1.27% | 1.35% | 0.91% | 0.65% | 2.75% | 0.22% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.17% |
NBFR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed 10 Buffer ETF | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
NBFR and FFTY 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.
On fees, NBFR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
NBFR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FFTY.
FFTY has the higher dividend yield at 1.27%, compared with 0.02% for NBFR.
NBFR is categorized as Defined Outcome, while FFTY is Mid Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and CapForce. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NBFR and 0.80% for FFTY.
Find the right allocation for NBFR and FFTY
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