QCOC vs. EAPR

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

QCOC (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - October) and EAPR (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds. QCOC is actively managed, while EAPR is passively managed. Over the past year, QCOC returned 14.62% vs 21.69% for EAPR. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QCOC charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EAPR.

Performance

QCOC vs. EAPR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - October (QCOC) 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, QCOC achieves a 6.36% return, which is significantly lower than EAPR's 12.29% return.

QCOC

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 0.55%
• YTD: 6.36%
• 6M: 6.24%
• 1Y: 14.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EAPR

• 1D: 0.36%
• 1M: 2.62%
• YTD: 12.29%
• 6M: 12.37%
• 1Y: 21.69%
• 3Y*: 10.87%
• 5Y*: 5.49%
• 10Y*: —

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

QCOC vs. EAPR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QCOC FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - October	6.36%	11.18%	1.79%
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	12.29%	14.80%	-4.54%

Correlation

The correlation between QCOC and EAPR is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 21, 2024	0.54

The correlation between QCOC and EAPR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QCOC vs. EAPR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCOC

QCOC Risk / Return Rank: 78
QCOC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
QCOC Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
QCOC Omega Ratio Rank: 85
QCOC Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
QCOC Martin Ratio Rank: 77

EAPR

EAPR Risk / Return Rank: 92
EAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
EAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
EAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
EAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
EAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

QCOC vs. EAPR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	QCOC	EAPR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.44	2.64	-0.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.46	4.18	-0.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.73	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.16	5.58	-2.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.25	31.01	-16.76

QCOC vs. EAPR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCOC Sharpe Ratio is 2.44, which is comparable to the EAPR Sharpe Ratio of 2.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCOC 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

QCOC vs. EAPR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCOC drawdown since its inception was -10.45%, smaller than the maximum EAPR drawdown of -17.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCOC and EAPR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCOC	EAPR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.45%	-17.65%	+7.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.64%	-3.90%	-0.74%
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	-0.15%	0.00%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.05%	-4.04%	+2.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.03%	0.70%	+0.33%

Volatility

QCOC vs. EAPR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - October (QCOC) is 1.68%, while Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) has a volatility of 4.70%. This indicates that QCOC 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

	QCOC	EAPR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.68%	4.70%	-3.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.03%	7.58%	-2.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.03%	8.25%	-2.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.34%	10.26%	-0.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.34%	10.15%	-0.81%

QCOC vs. EAPR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

QCOC vs. EAPR - Dividend Comparison

Neither QCOC nor EAPR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCOC and EAPR in my portfolio?

QCOC and EAPR have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QCOC or EAPR?

EAPR has higher volatility (4.70%) compared to QCOC (1.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCOC dropped -10.45% vs EAPR's -17.65%.

Which ETF is better, QCOC or EAPR?

On 1-year performance, EAPR leads with 21.69% vs 14.62% for QCOC. On fees, EAPR is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, QCOC has been the lower-risk option at 1.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCOC or EAPR?

Over the 1-year period, EAPR has performed better with a 21.69% return vs 14.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCOC or EAPR?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between QCOC and EAPR?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EAPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.64 vs 2.44), 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.