QDEC vs. EAPR

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

QDEC (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December) and EAPR (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April) are both exchange-traded funds - QDEC is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by FT Vest, while EAPR is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets. QDEC is actively managed, while EAPR is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QDEC returned 10.47%/yr vs 5.49%/yr for EAPR. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QDEC charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EAPR.

Performance

QDEC vs. EAPR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) 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, QDEC achieves a 9.31% return, which is significantly lower than EAPR's 12.29% return.

QDEC

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.71%
• YTD: 9.31%
• 6M: 8.98%
• 1Y: 25.39%
• 3Y*: 17.13%
• 5Y*: 10.47%
• 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)

QDEC vs. EAPR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QDEC FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December	9.31%	18.12%	16.40%	29.29%	-22.26%	14.77%
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	12.29%	14.80%	2.86%	8.19%	-5.01%	-2.89%

Correlation

The correlation between QDEC and EAPR is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.54
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2021	0.55

The correlation between QDEC and EAPR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QDEC vs. EAPR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QDEC

QDEC Risk / Return Rank: 80
QDEC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
QDEC Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
QDEC Omega Ratio Rank: 83
QDEC Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
QDEC Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

QDEC vs. EAPR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) 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.

	QDEC	EAPR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.53	2.64	-0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.55	4.18	-0.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.73	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.37	5.58	-2.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.85	31.01	-15.15

QDEC vs. EAPR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QDEC Sharpe Ratio is 2.53, which is comparable to the EAPR Sharpe Ratio of 2.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QDEC 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

QDEC vs. EAPR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QDEC drawdown since its inception was -25.25%, which is greater than EAPR's maximum drawdown of -17.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QDEC and EAPR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QDEC	EAPR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.25%	-17.65%	-7.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.58%	-3.90%	-3.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.08%	-10.24%	-5.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.25%	-17.65%	-7.60%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.42%	0.00%	-0.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.00%	-4.04%	-0.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.61%	0.70%	+0.91%

Volatility

QDEC vs. EAPR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) is 3.01%, while Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) has a volatility of 4.70%. This indicates that QDEC 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

	QDEC	EAPR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.01%	4.70%	-1.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.91%	7.58%	+0.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.10%	8.25%	+1.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.74%	10.26%	+4.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.59%	10.15%	+4.44%

QDEC vs. EAPR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

QDEC vs. EAPR - Dividend Comparison

Neither QDEC nor EAPR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QDEC and EAPR in my portfolio?

QDEC and EAPR have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QDEC or EAPR?

EAPR has higher volatility (4.70%) compared to QDEC (3.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QDEC dropped -25.25% vs EAPR's -17.65%.

Which ETF is better, QDEC or EAPR?

On 5-year performance, QDEC leads with 10.47% vs 5.49% for EAPR. On fees, EAPR is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, QDEC has been the lower-risk option at 3.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QDEC or EAPR?

Over the 5-year period, QDEC has performed better with a 10.47% return vs 5.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QDEC or EAPR?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between QDEC and EAPR?

QDEC is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while EAPR is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QDEC and 0.89% for EAPR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EAPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.64 vs 2.53), 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.