PBFB vs. EOCT

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February (PBFB) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT).

PBFB and EOCT are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. PBFB is an actively managed fund by PGIM. It was launched on Jan 31, 2024. EOCT is an actively managed fund by Innovator. It was launched on Sep 30, 2021.

Performance

PBFB vs. EOCT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February (PBFB) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

PBFB vs. EOCT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PBFB PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February	-1.32%	9.86%	10.00%
EOCT Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October	0.91%	22.03%	12.17%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PBFB achieves a -1.32% return, which is significantly lower than EOCT's 0.91% return.

PBFB

• 1D: 1.37%
• 1M: -1.73%
• YTD: -1.32%
• 6M: 1.11%
• 1Y: 10.42%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EOCT

• 1D: 1.81%
• 1M: -4.00%
• YTD: 0.91%
• 6M: 2.77%
• 1Y: 19.93%
• 3Y*: 11.33%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PBFB vs. EOCT - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBFB has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than EOCT's 0.89% expense ratio.

EOCT

Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October

PBFB

PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February

Return for Risk

PBFB vs. EOCT — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBFB

PBFB Risk / Return Rank: 74
PBFB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
PBFB Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
PBFB Omega Ratio Rank: 80
PBFB Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
PBFB Martin Ratio Rank: 83

EOCT

EOCT Risk / Return Rank: 90
EOCT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
EOCT Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
EOCT Omega Ratio Rank: 90
EOCT Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
EOCT Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

PBFB vs. EOCT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February (PBFB) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT). 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.

	PBFB	EOCT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.26	1.91	-0.65
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.89	2.67	-0.79
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.39	-0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.74	3.04	-1.31
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.60	12.67	-3.06
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PBFB vs. EOCT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBFB Sharpe Ratio is 1.26, which is lower than the EOCT Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBFB and EOCT, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PBFB	EOCT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.26	1.91	-0.65
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.31	0.49	+0.82

Correlation

The correlation between PBFB and EOCT is 0.57, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

PBFB vs. EOCT - Dividend Comparison

Neither PBFB nor EOCT has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

PBFB vs. EOCT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBFB drawdown since its inception was -8.65%, smaller than the maximum EOCT drawdown of -20.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBFB and EOCT.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBFB	EOCT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.65%	-20.35%	+11.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.16%	-6.57%	+0.41%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.47%	-4.23%	+1.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.63%	-5.88%	+5.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.11%	1.58%	-0.47%

Volatility

PBFB vs. EOCT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February (PBFB) is 2.54%, while Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT) has a volatility of 4.79%. This indicates that PBFB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EOCT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PBFB	EOCT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.54%	4.79%	-2.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.80%	6.68%	-2.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.31%	10.48%	-2.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.54%	11.41%	-4.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.54%	11.41%	-4.87%