QQQG vs. QBUF

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

QQQG (Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) and QBUF (Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. QQQG is actively managed, while QBUF is passively managed. Over the past year, QQQG returned 41.31% vs 11.91% for QBUF. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QQQG charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for QBUF.

Performance

QQQG vs. QBUF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQQG achieves a 31.21% return, which is significantly higher than QBUF's 4.76% return.

QQQG

• 1D: -0.92%
• 1M: 14.49%
• YTD: 31.21%
• 6M: 28.95%
• 1Y: 41.31%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QBUF

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 0.90%
• YTD: 4.76%
• 6M: 4.58%
• 1Y: 11.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QQQG vs. QBUF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	31.21%	14.72%	2.23%
QBUF Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly	4.76%	11.08%	5.22%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQG and QBUF is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2024	0.75

The correlation between QQQG and QBUF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

QQQG vs. QBUF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQQG	QBUF
Technology	68.6%	50.7%
Healthcare	12.1%	5.1%
Communication Services	10.2%	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	3.6%	12.5%
Industrials	2.6%	3.3%
Consumer Defensive	1.5%	8.7%
Energy	1.4%	0.7%
Basic Materials	-	1.3%
Financial Services	-	0.2%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	1.6%

Return for Risk

QQQG vs. QBUF — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQQG

QQQG Risk / Return Rank: 62
QQQG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
QQQG Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
QQQG Omega Ratio Rank: 60
QQQG Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
QQQG Martin Ratio Rank: 61

QBUF

QBUF Risk / Return Rank: 80
QBUF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
QBUF Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
QBUF Omega Ratio Rank: 81
QBUF Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
QBUF Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

QQQG vs. QBUF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF). 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.

	QQQG	QBUF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	2.28	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	3.20	-0.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.48	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.01	5.18	-2.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.82	17.77	-6.95
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QQQG vs. QBUF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQG Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is comparable to the QBUF Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQG and QBUF, 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

	QQQG	QBUF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.11	2.28	-0.17
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.17	1.36	-0.19

Drawdowns

QQQG vs. QBUF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQG drawdown since its inception was -23.61%, which is greater than QBUF's maximum drawdown of -8.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQG and QBUF.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQG	QBUF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.61%	-8.84%	-14.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.79%	-2.31%	-11.48%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.92%	0.00%	-0.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.59%	-0.82%	-2.77%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.83%	0.67%	+3.16%

Volatility

QQQG vs. QBUF - Volatility Comparison

Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG) has a higher volatility of 5.39% compared to Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF) at 0.23%. This indicates that QQQG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QBUF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQQG	QBUF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.39%	0.23%	+5.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.05%	3.87%	+12.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.67%	5.25%	+14.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.40%	8.46%	+14.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.40%	8.46%	+14.94%

QQQG vs. QBUF - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQQG has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than QBUF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQQG vs. QBUF - Dividend Comparison

QQQG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%, while QBUF has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
QBUF Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.06%	0.06%	0.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQQG and QBUF in my portfolio?

QQQG and QBUF have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QQQG or QBUF?

QQQG has higher volatility (5.39%) compared to QBUF (0.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQQG dropped -23.61% vs QBUF's -8.84%.

Which ETF is better, QQQG or QBUF?

On 1-year performance, QQQG leads with 41.31% vs 11.91% for QBUF. On fees, QQQG is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, QBUF has been the lower-risk option at 0.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QQQG or QBUF?

Over the 1-year period, QQQG has performed better with a 41.31% return vs 11.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQQG or QBUF?

QQQG is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for QBUF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QQQG or QBUF?

QQQG has the higher dividend yield at 0.06%, compared with 0.00% for QBUF.

What is the main difference between QQQG and QBUF?

They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for QQQG and 0.79% for QBUF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QBUF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 2.11), 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.