QBF vs. CIFU
QBF (Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly) and CIFU (T-REX 2X Long CIFR Daily Target ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QBF is a Blockchain fund actively managed by Innovator, while CIFU is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by REX. Both are actively managed. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QBF charges 0.79%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for CIFU.
Performance
QBF vs. CIFU - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QBF achieves a -23.63% return, which is significantly lower than CIFU's 90.91% return.
QBF
- 1D
- -2.17%
- 1M
- -14.35%
- YTD
- -23.63%
- 6M
- -27.96%
- 1Y
- -35.86%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CIFU
- 1D
- 0.89%
- 1M
- 94.18%
- YTD
- 90.91%
- 6M
- 10.06%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
QBF vs. CIFU - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
QBF Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly | -23.63% | -3.34% |
CIFU T-REX 2X Long CIFR Daily Target ETF | 90.91% | -6.67% |
Correlation
The correlation between QBF and CIFU is 0.51, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 24, 2025 | 0.51 |
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
QBF vs. CIFU — Risk / Return Rank
QBF
CIFU
QBF vs. CIFU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly (QBF) and T-REX 2X Long CIFR Daily Target ETF (CIFU). 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.
| QBF | CIFU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.78 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.84 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.48 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| QBF | CIFU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -1.37 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.97 | 0.99 | -1.96 |
Drawdowns
QBF vs. CIFU - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QBF drawdown since its inception was -42.92%, smaller than the maximum CIFU drawdown of -77.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QBF and CIFU.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QBF | CIFU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -42.92% | -77.20% | +34.28% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -42.92% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -42.92% | -9.09% | -33.83% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.82% | -45.35% | +28.53% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 24.20% | — | — |
Volatility
QBF vs. CIFU - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QBF | CIFU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.09% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 18.56% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.36% | 206.19% | -179.83% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.53% | 206.19% | -177.66% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 28.53% | 206.19% | -177.66% |
QBF vs. CIFU - Expense Ratio Comparison
QBF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than CIFU's 1.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
QBF vs. CIFU - Dividend Comparison
QBF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.81%, while CIFU has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
CIFU T-REX 2X Long CIFR Daily Target ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% |
QBF Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly | 1.81% | 1.38% |
Frequently Asked Questions
QBF and CIFU have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, QBF is cheaper at 0.79% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
QBF is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for CIFU.
QBF has the higher dividend yield at 1.81%, compared with 0.00% for CIFU.
QBF is categorized as Blockchain, while CIFU is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and REX. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for QBF and 1.50% for CIFU.
Find the right allocation for QBF and CIFU
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