QFLR vs. BALT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QFLR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF) and BALT (Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QFLR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Innovator, while BALT is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the S&P 500. QFLR is actively managed, while BALT is passively managed. Over the past year, QFLR returned 26.98% vs 6.95% for BALT. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QFLR charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for BALT.

Performance

QFLR vs. BALT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) and Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF (BALT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QFLR achieves a 6.90% return, which is significantly higher than BALT's 1.91% return.

QFLR

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 3.99%
• YTD: 6.90%
• 6M: 5.88%
• 1Y: 26.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BALT

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.53%
• YTD: 1.91%
• 6M: 2.81%
• 1Y: 6.95%
• 3Y*: 7.27%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QFLR vs. BALT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	6.90%	17.27%	16.64%
BALT Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF	1.91%	6.65%	9.14%

Correlation

The correlation between QFLR and BALT is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 26, 2024	0.70

The correlation between QFLR and BALT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

QFLR vs. BALT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QFLR	BALT
Technology	50.8%	36.2%
Communication Services	18.4%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	12.1%	10.1%
Consumer Defensive	9.2%	4.9%
Healthcare	3.2%	8.4%
Industrials	2.8%	8.1%
Utilities	1.5%	2.3%
Energy	1.1%	3.5%
Financial Services	0.9%	11.9%
Basic Materials	0.0%	1.8%
Real Estate	-	1.9%

Return for Risk

QFLR vs. BALT — Risk / Return Rank

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

QFLR

QFLR Risk / Return Rank: 74
QFLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QFLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
QFLR Omega Ratio Rank: 74
QFLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
QFLR Martin Ratio Rank: 78

BALT

BALT Risk / Return Rank: 92
BALT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
BALT Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
BALT Omega Ratio Rank: 93
BALT Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
BALT 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.

QFLR vs. BALT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) and Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF (BALT). 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.

	QFLR	BALT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.41	3.19	-0.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.26	4.88	-1.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.67	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.56	6.05	-2.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.19	22.58	-7.39
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QFLR vs. BALT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QFLR Sharpe Ratio is 2.41, which is comparable to the BALT Sharpe Ratio of 3.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QFLR and BALT, 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

	QFLR	BALT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.41	3.19	-0.78
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.40	1.80	-0.40

Drawdowns

QFLR vs. BALT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QFLR drawdown since its inception was -13.97%, which is greater than BALT's maximum drawdown of -4.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QFLR and BALT.

Drawdown Indicators

	QFLR	BALT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.97%	-4.89%	-9.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.61%	-1.15%	-6.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-4.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.48%	-0.06%	-0.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.50%	-0.34%	-2.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.78%	0.31%	+1.47%

Volatility

QFLR vs. BALT - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) has a higher volatility of 2.53% compared to Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF (BALT) at 0.37%. This indicates that QFLR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BALT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QFLR	BALT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.53%	0.37%	+2.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.05%	1.56%	+6.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.28%	2.19%	+9.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.62%	3.32%	+9.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.62%	3.32%	+9.30%

QFLR vs. BALT - Expense Ratio Comparison

QFLR has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than BALT's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

QFLR vs. BALT - Dividend Comparison

Neither QFLR nor BALT has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BALT Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	0.00%	0.02%	0.03%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QFLR and BALT in my portfolio?

QFLR and BALT have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QFLR or BALT?

QFLR has higher volatility (2.53%) compared to BALT (0.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QFLR dropped -13.97% vs BALT's -4.89%.

Which ETF is better, QFLR or BALT?

On 1-year performance, QFLR leads with 26.98% vs 6.95% for BALT. On fees, BALT is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, BALT has been the lower-risk option at 0.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QFLR or BALT?

Over the 1-year period, QFLR has performed better with a 26.98% return vs 6.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QFLR or BALT?

BALT is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for QFLR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QFLR or BALT?

QFLR and BALT have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between QFLR and BALT?

QFLR is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while BALT is Defined Outcome. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for QFLR and 0.69% for BALT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BALT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs 2.41), 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.