QBSF vs. EAPR

Last updated Jul 11, 2026

QBSF (AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF) and EAPR (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds. QBSF is actively managed, while EAPR is passively managed. Over the past year, QBSF returned 7.85% vs 16.69% for EAPR. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QBSF charges 0.64%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EAPR.

Performance

QBSF vs. EAPR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF (QBSF) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QBSF achieves a 3.18% return, which is significantly lower than EAPR's 10.08% return.

QBSF

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 0.67%
• 6M: 2.89%
• YTD: 3.18%
• 1Y: 7.85%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EAPR

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: 0.11%
• 6M: 9.37%
• YTD: 10.08%
• 1Y: 16.69%
• 3Y*: 9.77%
• 5Y*: 5.26%
• 10Y*: —

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

QBSF vs. EAPR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QBSF AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF	3.18%	4.79%
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	10.08%	6.15%

Correlation

The correlation between QBSF and EAPR is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2025	0.48

Return for Risk

QBSF vs. EAPR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QBSF

QBSF Risk / Return Rank: 94
QBSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
QBSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
QBSF Omega Ratio Rank: 96
QBSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
QBSF Martin Ratio Rank: 93

EAPR

EAPR Risk / Return Rank: 85
EAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
EAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
EAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 92
EAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
EAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

QBSF vs. EAPR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF (QBSF) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR). 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.

	QBSF	EAPR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.92	1.88	+1.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.51	2.75	+1.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.65	1.49	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.96	4.27	+0.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.02	18.98	+0.04

QBSF vs. EAPR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QBSF Sharpe Ratio is 2.92, which is higher than the EAPR Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QBSF and EAPR, 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

QBSF vs. EAPR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QBSF drawdown since its inception was -1.58%, smaller than the maximum EAPR drawdown of -17.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QBSF and EAPR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QBSF	EAPR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.58%	-17.65%	+16.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.58%	-3.90%	+2.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-10.24%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-16.53%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.96%	+1.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.20%	-4.02%	+3.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.41%	0.88%	-0.47%

Volatility

QBSF vs. EAPR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF (QBSF) is 0.64%, while Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) has a volatility of 4.86%. This indicates that QBSF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EAPR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QBSF	EAPR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.64%	4.86%	-4.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.90%	8.43%	-6.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.69%	8.88%	-6.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.68%	10.35%	-7.67%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.68%	10.22%	-7.54%

QBSF vs. EAPR - Expense Ratio Comparison

QBSF has a 0.64% expense ratio, which is lower than EAPR's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

QBSF vs. EAPR - Dividend Comparison

Neither QBSF nor EAPR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QBSF and EAPR in my portfolio?

QBSF and EAPR have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QBSF or EAPR?

EAPR has higher volatility (4.86%) compared to QBSF (0.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QBSF dropped -1.58% vs EAPR's -17.65%.

Which ETF is better, QBSF or EAPR?

On 1-year performance, EAPR leads with 16.69% vs 7.85% for QBSF. On fees, QBSF is cheaper at 0.64% per year. On volatility, QBSF has been the lower-risk option at 0.64%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QBSF or EAPR?

Over the 1-year period, EAPR has performed better with a 16.69% return vs 7.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QBSF or EAPR?

QBSF is cheaper with a 0.64% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for EAPR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QBSF or EAPR?

QBSF and EAPR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between QBSF and EAPR?

They also come from different issuers: AllianzIM and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.64% for QBSF and 0.89% for EAPR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QBSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.92 vs 1.88), 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.