NOCT vs. QFLR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NOCT (Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - October) and QFLR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NOCT is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Innovator, while QFLR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Innovator. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, NOCT returned 17.36% vs 26.98% for QFLR. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NOCT charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for QFLR.

Performance

NOCT vs. QFLR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - October (NOCT) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NOCT achieves a 7.61% return, which is significantly higher than QFLR's 6.90% return.

NOCT

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 2.54%
• YTD: 7.61%
• 6M: 7.69%
• 1Y: 17.36%
• 3Y*: 14.98%
• 5Y*: 10.46%
• 10Y*: —

QFLR

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 3.99%
• YTD: 6.90%
• 6M: 5.88%
• 1Y: 26.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NOCT vs. QFLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NOCT Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - October	7.61%	12.81%	10.20%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	6.90%	17.27%	16.64%

Correlation

The correlation between NOCT and QFLR is 0.87, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 26, 2024	0.87

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

NOCT vs. QFLR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NOCT	QFLR
Technology	54.2%	50.8%
Communication Services	15.5%	18.4%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	12.1%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	9.2%
Healthcare	4.2%	3.2%
Industrials	2.8%	2.8%
Utilities	1.4%	1.5%
Basic Materials	1.2%	0.0%
Energy	0.6%	1.1%
Financial Services	0.2%	0.9%
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

NOCT vs. QFLR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NOCT

NOCT Risk / Return Rank: 71
NOCT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
NOCT Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
NOCT Omega Ratio Rank: 78
NOCT Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
NOCT Martin Ratio Rank: 74

QFLR

QFLR Risk / Return Rank: 74
QFLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QFLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
QFLR Omega Ratio Rank: 74
QFLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
QFLR Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

NOCT vs. QFLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - October (NOCT) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). 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.

	NOCT	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.31	2.41	-0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.26	3.26	0.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.44	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.99	3.56	-0.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.90	15.19	-1.29
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NOCT vs. QFLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NOCT Sharpe Ratio is 2.31, which is comparable to the QFLR Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NOCT and QFLR, 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

	NOCT	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.31	2.41	-0.09
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.01	1.40	-0.39

Drawdowns

NOCT vs. QFLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NOCT drawdown since its inception was -16.21%, which is greater than QFLR's maximum drawdown of -13.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NOCT and QFLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	NOCT	QFLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.21%	-13.97%	-2.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.84%	-7.61%	+1.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.70%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.21%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.16%	-0.48%	+0.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.34%	-2.50%	+0.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.25%	1.78%	-0.53%

Volatility

NOCT vs. QFLR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - October (NOCT) is 1.01%, while Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) has a volatility of 2.53%. This indicates that NOCT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QFLR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NOCT	QFLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.01%	2.53%	-1.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.90%	8.05%	-2.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.55%	11.28%	-3.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.93%	12.62%	-1.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.19%	12.62%	-1.43%

NOCT vs. QFLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

NOCT has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than QFLR's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

NOCT vs. QFLR - Dividend Comparison

Neither NOCT nor QFLR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
NOCT Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - October	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.07%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	0.00%	0.02%	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NOCT and QFLR in my portfolio?

NOCT and QFLR have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NOCT or QFLR?

QFLR has higher volatility (2.53%) compared to NOCT (1.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NOCT dropped -16.21% vs QFLR's -13.97%.

Which ETF is better, NOCT or QFLR?

On 1-year performance, QFLR leads with 26.98% vs 17.36% for NOCT. On fees, NOCT is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, NOCT has been the lower-risk option at 1.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NOCT or QFLR?

Over the 1-year period, QFLR has performed better with a 26.98% return vs 17.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NOCT or QFLR?

NOCT is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for QFLR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NOCT or QFLR?

NOCT and QFLR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between NOCT and QFLR?

NOCT is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QFLR is Nasdaq-100. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NOCT and 0.89% for QFLR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QFLR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 vs 2.31), 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.