QBF vs. ILS

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

QBF (Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly) and ILS (Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QBF is a Blockchain fund actively managed by Innovator, while ILS is a Nontraditional Bonds fund actively managed by Brookmont. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QBF returned -42.28% vs 7.63% for ILS. Their -0.11 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. QBF charges 0.79%/yr vs 1.58%/yr for ILS.

Performance

QBF vs. ILS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly (QBF) and Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QBF achieves a -27.43% return, which is significantly lower than ILS's 3.55% return.

QBF

• 1D: 0.45%
• 1M: 3.01%
• 6M: -19.69%
• YTD: -27.43%
• 1Y: -42.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -27.57%

ILS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.99%
• 6M: 3.21%
• YTD: 3.55%
• 1Y: 7.63%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.33%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF	$448.54K	$510.06K	$623.45K
QBF Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly	$61.34K	$84.88K	$133.05K

QBF vs. ILS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QBF Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly	-27.43%	0.92%
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF	3.55%	3.54%

Correlation

The correlation between QBF and ILS is -0.08, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2025	-0.11

Return for Risk

QBF vs. ILS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

QBF

QBF Risk / Return Rank: 1
QBF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
QBF Sortino Ratio Rank: 0
QBF Omega Ratio Rank: 0
QBF Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
QBF Martin Ratio Rank: 1

ILS

ILS Risk / Return Rank: 97
ILS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
ILS Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
ILS Omega Ratio Rank: 97
ILS Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
ILS Martin Ratio Rank: 98

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QBF vs. ILS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly (QBF) and Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS). 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.

	QBF	ILS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.56	3.11	-4.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-2.43	5.19	-7.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.74	1.72	-0.98
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.87	13.85	-14.72
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.39	51.98	-53.37

QBF vs. ILS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QBF Sharpe Ratio is -1.56, which is lower than the ILS Sharpe Ratio of 3.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QBF and ILS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

QBF vs. ILS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QBF drawdown since its inception was -48.71%, which is greater than ILS's maximum drawdown of -2.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QBF and ILS.

Drawdown Indicators

	QBF	ILS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.71%	-2.46%	-46.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-48.71%	-0.55%	-48.16%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-45.76%	0.00%	-45.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.02%	-0.50%	-19.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	30.54%	0.15%	+30.39%

Volatility

QBF vs. ILS - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly (QBF) has a higher volatility of 5.79% compared to Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS) at 0.41%. This indicates that QBF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ILS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QBF	ILS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.79%	0.41%	+5.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.12%	1.46%	+17.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.19%	2.46%	+24.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.64%	3.64%	+25.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.64%	3.64%	+25.00%

QBF vs. ILS - Expense Ratio Comparison

QBF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than ILS's 1.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

QBF vs. ILS - Dividend Comparison

QBF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.90%, less than ILS's 8.13% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF	8.13%	6.06%
QBF Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly	1.90%	1.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QBF and ILS in my portfolio?

QBF and ILS have a correlation of -0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QBF or ILS?

QBF has higher volatility (5.79%) compared to ILS (0.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QBF dropped -48.71% vs ILS's -2.46%.

Which ETF is better, QBF or ILS?

On 1-year performance, ILS leads with 7.63% vs -42.28% for QBF. On fees, QBF is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, ILS has been the lower-risk option at 0.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QBF or ILS?

Over the 1-year period, ILS has performed better with a 7.63% return vs -42.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QBF or ILS?

QBF is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 1.58% for ILS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QBF or ILS?

ILS has the higher dividend yield at 8.13%, compared with 1.90% for QBF.

What is the main difference between QBF and ILS?

QBF is categorized as Blockchain, while ILS is Nontraditional Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Brookmont. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for QBF and 1.58% for ILS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.11 vs -1.56), 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.