QCOC vs. PBQQ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QCOC (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - October) and PBQQ (PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QCOC returned 15.00% vs 20.98% for PBQQ. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QCOC charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PBQQ.

Performance

QCOC vs. PBQQ - 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 Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF (PBQQ). 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 PBQQ's 9.10% return.

QCOC

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 2.10%
• YTD: 6.36%
• 6M: 6.44%
• 1Y: 15.00%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PBQQ

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 2.58%
• YTD: 9.10%
• 6M: 9.79%
• 1Y: 20.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QCOC vs. PBQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QCOC FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - October	6.36%	11.24%
PBQQ PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF	9.10%	15.44%

Correlation

The correlation between QCOC and PBQQ is 0.94, 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	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 3, 2025	0.95

The correlation between QCOC and PBQQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QCOC vs. PBQQ — 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: 80
QCOC Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
QCOC Omega Ratio Rank: 86
QCOC Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
QCOC Martin Ratio Rank: 78

PBQQ

PBQQ Risk / Return Rank: 89
PBQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
PBQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
PBQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 91
PBQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
PBQQ 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.

QCOC vs. PBQQ - 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 Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF (PBQQ). 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	PBQQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.55	2.94	-0.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.63	4.33	-0.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	1.59	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.25	4.47	-1.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.79	21.36	-6.57
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. PBQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCOC Sharpe Ratio is 2.55, which is comparable to the PBQQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCOC and PBQQ, 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	PBQQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.55	2.94	-0.39
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.32	1.50	-0.18

Drawdowns

QCOC vs. PBQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCOC drawdown since its inception was -10.45%, smaller than the maximum PBQQ drawdown of -12.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCOC and PBQQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCOC	PBQQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.45%	-12.92%	+2.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.64%	-4.71%	+0.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.15%	-0.21%	+0.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.07%	-1.26%	+0.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.02%	0.98%	+0.04%

Volatility

QCOC vs. PBQQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - October (QCOC) is 0.89%, while PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF (PBQQ) has a volatility of 1.07%. This indicates that QCOC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PBQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCOC	PBQQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.89%	1.07%	-0.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.92%	5.51%	-0.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.91%	7.18%	-1.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.40%	11.88%	-2.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.40%	11.88%	-2.48%

QCOC vs. PBQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

QCOC vs. PBQQ - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025
PBQQ PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF	0.01%	0.01%
QCOC FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - October	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCOC and PBQQ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, QCOC and PBQQ move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, QCOC or PBQQ?

PBQQ has higher volatility (1.07%) compared to QCOC (0.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCOC dropped -10.45% vs PBQQ's -12.92%.

Which ETF is better, QCOC or PBQQ?

On 1-year performance, PBQQ leads with 20.98% vs 15.00% for QCOC. On fees, PBQQ is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, QCOC has been the lower-risk option at 0.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCOC or PBQQ?

Over the 1-year period, PBQQ has performed better with a 20.98% return vs 15.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCOC or PBQQ?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between QCOC and PBQQ?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PBQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.94 vs 2.55), 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.