QCOC vs. PBFR

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

QCOC (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - October) and PBFR (PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QCOC returned 14.66% vs 12.96% for PBFR. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QCOC charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PBFR.

Performance

QCOC vs. PBFR - 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 PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF (PBFR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCOC achieves a 6.29% return, which is significantly higher than PBFR's 4.65% return.

QCOC

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 1.76%
• YTD: 6.29%
• 6M: 6.43%
• 1Y: 14.66%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PBFR

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 1.31%
• YTD: 4.65%
• 6M: 5.46%
• 1Y: 12.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QCOC vs. PBFR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QCOC FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - October	6.29%	11.18%	2.01%
PBFR PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF	4.65%	10.44%	1.25%

Correlation

The correlation between QCOC and PBFR is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 22, 2024	0.82

The correlation between QCOC and PBFR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QCOC vs. PBFR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCOC

QCOC Risk / Return Rank: 77
QCOC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
QCOC Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
QCOC Omega Ratio Rank: 86
QCOC Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
QCOC Martin Ratio Rank: 77

PBFR

PBFR Risk / Return Rank: 91
PBFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
PBFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
PBFR Omega Ratio Rank: 94
PBFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
PBFR 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.

QCOC vs. PBFR - 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 PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF (PBFR). 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.

	QCOC	PBFR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.49	3.01	-0.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.55	4.40	-0.85
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.66	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.17	4.62	-1.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.46	24.33	-9.87
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QCOC vs. PBFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCOC Sharpe Ratio is 2.49, which is comparable to the PBFR Sharpe Ratio of 3.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCOC and PBFR, 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

	QCOC	PBFR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.49	3.01	-0.52
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.32	1.55	-0.24

Drawdowns

QCOC vs. PBFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCOC drawdown since its inception was -10.45%, which is greater than PBFR's maximum drawdown of -8.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCOC and PBFR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCOC	PBFR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.45%	-8.50%	-1.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.64%	-2.82%	-1.82%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.21%	-0.03%	-0.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.07%	-0.63%	-0.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.02%	0.53%	+0.49%

Volatility

QCOC vs. PBFR - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - October (QCOC) has a higher volatility of 0.88% compared to PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF (PBFR) at 0.55%. This indicates that QCOC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PBFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCOC	PBFR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.88%	0.55%	+0.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.91%	3.34%	+1.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.91%	4.32%	+1.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.39%	6.89%	+2.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.39%	6.89%	+2.50%

QCOC vs. PBFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCOC has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than PBFR's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCOC vs. PBFR - Dividend Comparison

QCOC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PBFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
PBFR PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%
QCOC FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - October	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCOC and PBFR in my portfolio?

QCOC and PBFR have a correlation of 0.82, 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 PBFR?

QCOC has higher volatility (0.88%) compared to PBFR (0.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCOC dropped -10.45% vs PBFR's -8.50%.

Which ETF is better, QCOC or PBFR?

On 1-year performance, QCOC leads with 14.66% vs 12.96% for PBFR. On fees, PBFR is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PBFR has been the lower-risk option at 0.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCOC or PBFR?

Over the 1-year period, QCOC has performed better with a 14.66% return vs 12.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCOC or PBFR?

PBFR is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCOC.

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

PBFR has the higher dividend yield at 0.01%, compared with 0.00% for QCOC.

What is the main difference between QCOC and PBFR?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QCOC and 0.50% for PBFR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PBFR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.01 vs 2.49), 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.