QBUF vs. BALT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QBUF (Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly) and BALT (Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QBUF is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Invesco QQQ Trust, while BALT is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the S&P 500. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, QBUF returned 11.93% vs 6.95% for BALT. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QBUF charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for BALT.

Performance

QBUF vs. BALT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF) and Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF (BALT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QBUF achieves a 4.68% return, which is significantly higher than BALT's 1.91% return.

QBUF

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 0.84%
• YTD: 4.68%
• 6M: 4.57%
• 1Y: 11.93%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BALT

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.53%
• YTD: 1.91%
• 6M: 2.81%
• 1Y: 6.95%
• 3Y*: 7.27%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QBUF vs. BALT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QBUF Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly	4.68%	11.08%	5.92%
BALT Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF	1.91%	6.65%	4.42%

Correlation

The correlation between QBUF and BALT is 0.70, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2024	0.75

The correlation between QBUF and BALT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

QBUF vs. BALT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QBUF	BALT
Technology	50.7%	36.2%
Communication Services	15.8%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	12.5%	10.1%
Consumer Defensive	8.7%	4.9%
Healthcare	5.1%	8.4%
Industrials	3.3%	8.1%
Utilities	1.6%	2.3%
Basic Materials	1.3%	1.8%
Energy	0.7%	3.5%
Financial Services	0.2%	11.9%
Real Estate	0.1%	1.9%

Return for Risk

QBUF vs. BALT — Risk / Return Rank

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

QBUF

QBUF Risk / Return Rank: 79
QBUF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
QBUF Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
QBUF Omega Ratio Rank: 80
QBUF Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
QBUF Martin Ratio Rank: 85

BALT

BALT Risk / Return Rank: 92
BALT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
BALT Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
BALT Omega Ratio Rank: 93
BALT Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
BALT Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

QBUF vs. BALT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF) and Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF (BALT). 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.

	QBUF	BALT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.28	3.19	-0.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.20	4.88	-1.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.67	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.19	6.05	-0.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.79	22.58	-4.79
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QBUF vs. BALT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QBUF Sharpe Ratio is 2.28, which is comparable to the BALT Sharpe Ratio of 3.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QBUF and BALT, 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

	QBUF	BALT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.28	3.19	-0.91
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.36	1.80	-0.44

Drawdowns

QBUF vs. BALT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QBUF drawdown since its inception was -8.84%, which is greater than BALT's maximum drawdown of -4.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QBUF and BALT.

Drawdown Indicators

	QBUF	BALT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.84%	-4.89%	-3.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.31%	-1.15%	-1.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-4.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.01%	-0.06%	+0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.82%	-0.34%	-0.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.67%	0.31%	+0.36%

Volatility

QBUF vs. BALT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF) is 0.23%, while Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF (BALT) has a volatility of 0.37%. This indicates that QBUF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BALT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QBUF	BALT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.23%	0.37%	-0.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.88%	1.56%	+2.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.25%	2.19%	+3.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.47%	3.32%	+5.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.47%	3.32%	+5.15%

QBUF vs. BALT - Expense Ratio Comparison

QBUF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than BALT's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

QBUF vs. BALT - Dividend Comparison

Neither QBUF nor BALT has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QBUF and BALT in my portfolio?

QBUF and BALT have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QBUF or BALT?

BALT has higher volatility (0.37%) compared to QBUF (0.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QBUF dropped -8.84% vs BALT's -4.89%.

Which ETF is better, QBUF or BALT?

On 1-year performance, QBUF leads with 11.93% vs 6.95% for BALT. On fees, BALT is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, QBUF has been the lower-risk option at 0.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QBUF or BALT?

Over the 1-year period, QBUF has performed better with a 11.93% return vs 6.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QBUF or BALT?

BALT is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for QBUF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QBUF or BALT?

QBUF and BALT have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between QBUF and BALT?

QBUF is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while BALT is Defined Outcome. QBUF tracks Invesco QQQ Trust, while BALT tracks S&P 500. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for QBUF and 0.69% for BALT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BALT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs 2.28), 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.