QCJA vs. EAPR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QCJA (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January) and EAPR (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds. QCJA is actively managed, while EAPR is passively managed. Over the past year, QCJA returned 15.75% vs 22.07% for EAPR. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QCJA charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EAPR.

Performance

QCJA vs. EAPR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) 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, QCJA achieves a 5.92% return, which is significantly lower than EAPR's 11.39% return.

QCJA

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 2.12%
• YTD: 5.92%
• 6M: 6.91%
• 1Y: 15.75%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EAPR

• 1D: -0.45%
• 1M: 2.01%
• YTD: 11.39%
• 6M: 12.25%
• 1Y: 22.07%
• 3Y*: 10.62%
• 5Y*: 5.15%
• 10Y*: —

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

QCJA vs. EAPR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QCJA FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January	5.92%	10.69%
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	11.39%	13.88%

Correlation

The correlation between QCJA and EAPR 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 22, 2025	0.52

The correlation between QCJA and EAPR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QCJA vs. EAPR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCJA

QCJA Risk / Return Rank: 81
QCJA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
QCJA Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
QCJA Omega Ratio Rank: 89
QCJA Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
QCJA Martin Ratio Rank: 80

EAPR

EAPR Risk / Return Rank: 94
EAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
EAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
EAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
EAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
EAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

QCJA vs. EAPR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) 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.

	QCJA	EAPR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.74	3.06	-0.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.00	5.25	-1.25
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.84	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.18	7.33	-4.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.46	42.15	-26.69
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QCJA vs. EAPR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCJA Sharpe Ratio is 2.74, which is comparable to the EAPR Sharpe Ratio of 3.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCJA 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QCJA	EAPR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.74	3.06	-0.32
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.51	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.31	0.54	+0.77

Drawdowns

QCJA vs. EAPR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCJA drawdown since its inception was -10.67%, smaller than the maximum EAPR drawdown of -17.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCJA and EAPR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCJA	EAPR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.67%	-17.65%	+6.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.98%	-3.02%	-1.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-10.24%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.65%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.10%	-0.45%	+0.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.19%	-4.06%	+2.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.02%	0.52%	+0.50%

Volatility

QCJA vs. EAPR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) is 0.83%, while Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) has a volatility of 3.79%. This indicates that QCJA 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

	QCJA	EAPR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.83%	3.79%	-2.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.62%	6.28%	-1.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.78%	7.24%	-1.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.48%	10.09%	-0.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.48%	10.02%	-0.54%

QCJA vs. EAPR - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCJA has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than EAPR's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCJA vs. EAPR - Dividend Comparison

Neither QCJA nor EAPR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCJA and EAPR in my portfolio?

QCJA and EAPR 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.

Which is riskier, QCJA or EAPR?

EAPR has higher volatility (3.79%) compared to QCJA (0.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCJA dropped -10.67% vs EAPR's -17.65%.

Which ETF is better, QCJA or EAPR?

On 1-year performance, EAPR leads with 22.07% vs 15.75% for QCJA. On fees, EAPR is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, QCJA has been the lower-risk option at 0.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCJA or EAPR?

Over the 1-year period, EAPR has performed better with a 22.07% return vs 15.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCJA or EAPR?

EAPR is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCJA.

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

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

What is the main difference between QCJA and EAPR?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QCJA and 0.89% for EAPR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EAPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.06 vs 2.74), 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.