NJUL vs. QBUF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NJUL (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - July) and QBUF (Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly) are both Nasdaq-100 funds from Innovator tracking the Invesco QQQ Trust. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NJUL returned 18.75% vs 11.93% for QBUF. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.79% expense ratio.

Performance

NJUL vs. QBUF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NJUL achieves a 6.16% return, which is significantly higher than QBUF's 4.68% return.

NJUL

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 1.39%
• YTD: 6.16%
• 6M: 6.40%
• 1Y: 18.75%
• 3Y*: 14.95%
• 5Y*: 10.86%
• 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)

NJUL vs. QBUF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NJUL Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - July	6.16%	15.67%	5.21%
QBUF Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly	4.68%	11.08%	5.92%

Correlation

The correlation between NJUL and QBUF 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 2, 2024	0.83

The correlation between NJUL and QBUF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

NJUL vs. QBUF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NJUL	QBUF
Technology	54.2%	50.7%
Communication Services	15.5%	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	12.5%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	8.7%
Healthcare	4.2%	5.1%
Industrials	2.8%	3.3%
Utilities	1.4%	1.6%
Basic Materials	1.2%	1.3%
Energy	0.6%	0.7%
Financial Services	0.2%	0.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.1%

Return for Risk

NJUL vs. QBUF — Risk / Return Rank

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

NJUL

NJUL Risk / Return Rank: 80
NJUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
NJUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
NJUL Omega Ratio Rank: 81
NJUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
NJUL Martin Ratio Rank: 88

QBUF

QBUF Risk / Return Rank: 79
QBUF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
QBUF Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
QBUF Omega Ratio Rank: 80
QBUF Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
QBUF Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

NJUL vs. QBUF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - July (NJUL) 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.

	NJUL	QBUF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.45	2.28	+0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.56	3.20	+0.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.48	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.82	5.19	-1.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.60	17.79	+1.81
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NJUL vs. QBUF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NJUL Sharpe Ratio is 2.45, which is comparable to the QBUF Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NJUL 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	NJUL	QBUF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.45	2.28	+0.17
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.01	1.36	-0.35

Drawdowns

NJUL vs. QBUF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NJUL drawdown since its inception was -14.37%, which is greater than QBUF's maximum drawdown of -8.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NJUL and QBUF.

Drawdown Indicators

	NJUL	QBUF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.37%	-8.84%	-5.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.93%	-2.31%	-2.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.58%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.01%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.31%	-0.82%	-1.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.96%	0.67%	+0.29%

Volatility

NJUL vs. QBUF - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - July (NJUL) has a higher volatility of 0.40% compared to Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF) at 0.23%. This indicates that NJUL'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.

Volatility by Period

	NJUL	QBUF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.40%	0.23%	+0.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.33%	3.88%	+1.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.71%	5.25%	+2.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.56%	8.47%	+3.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.06%	8.47%	+2.59%

NJUL vs. QBUF - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

NJUL vs. QBUF - Dividend Comparison

Neither NJUL nor QBUF has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NJUL and QBUF in my portfolio?

NJUL and QBUF 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, NJUL or QBUF?

NJUL has higher volatility (0.40%) compared to QBUF (0.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NJUL dropped -14.37% vs QBUF's -8.84%.

Which ETF is better, NJUL or QBUF?

On 1-year performance, NJUL leads with 18.75% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, NJUL or QBUF?

Over the 1-year period, NJUL has performed better with a 18.75% return vs 11.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NJUL or QBUF?

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

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NJUL or QBUF?

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

What is the main difference between NJUL and QBUF?

Both ETFs track Invesco QQQ Trust.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NJUL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.45 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.