QSPT vs. EOCT

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

QSPT (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – September) and EOCT (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October) are both exchange-traded funds - QSPT is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by FT Vest, while EOCT is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Innovator. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, QSPT returned 16.98%/yr vs 11.99%/yr for EOCT. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QSPT charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EOCT.

Performance

QSPT vs. EOCT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – September (QSPT) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QSPT achieves a 9.28% return, which is significantly higher than EOCT's 7.12% return.

QSPT

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: -0.29%
• 6M: 8.36%
• YTD: 9.28%
• 1Y: 16.08%
• 3Y*: 16.98%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EOCT

• 1D: -0.46%
• 1M: -0.50%
• 6M: 4.51%
• YTD: 7.12%
• 1Y: 18.74%
• 3Y*: 11.99%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QSPT vs. EOCT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QSPT FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – September	9.28%	14.58%	16.07%	43.15%	-20.38%	5.92%
EOCT Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October	7.12%	22.03%	9.66%	6.26%	-10.75%	-0.22%

Correlation

The correlation between QSPT and EOCT is 0.72, 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	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2021	0.62

The correlation between QSPT and EOCT shifts across timeframes, from 0.61 (3 years) to 0.72 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

QSPT vs. EOCT — Risk / Return Rank

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

QSPT

QSPT Risk / Return Rank: 62
QSPT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
QSPT Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
QSPT Omega Ratio Rank: 63
QSPT Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
QSPT Martin Ratio Rank: 69

EOCT

EOCT Risk / Return Rank: 80
EOCT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
EOCT Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
EOCT Omega Ratio Rank: 82
EOCT Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
EOCT Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

QSPT vs. EOCT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – September (QSPT) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT). 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.

	QSPT	EOCT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.64	2.06	-0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.31	2.86	-0.55
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.39	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.23	3.18	-0.94
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.83	12.52	-2.70

QSPT vs. EOCT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QSPT Sharpe Ratio is 1.64, which is comparable to the EOCT Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QSPT and EOCT, 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

QSPT vs. EOCT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QSPT drawdown since its inception was -22.64%, which is greater than EOCT's maximum drawdown of -20.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QSPT and EOCT.

Drawdown Indicators

	QSPT	EOCT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.64%	-20.35%	-2.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.23%	-5.93%	-1.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.38%	-10.76%	-4.62%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.77%	-1.12%	+0.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.51%	-5.57%	+1.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.64%	1.50%	+0.14%

Volatility

QSPT vs. EOCT - Volatility Comparison

FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – September (QSPT) has a higher volatility of 2.52% compared to Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT) at 2.38%. This indicates that QSPT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EOCT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QSPT	EOCT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.52%	2.38%	+0.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.94%	7.14%	+0.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.84%	9.16%	+0.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.04%	11.27%	+3.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.04%	11.27%	+3.77%

QSPT vs. EOCT - Expense Ratio Comparison

QSPT has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than EOCT's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

QSPT vs. EOCT - Dividend Comparison

Neither QSPT nor EOCT has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QSPT and EOCT in my portfolio?

QSPT and EOCT have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QSPT or EOCT?

QSPT has higher volatility (2.52%) compared to EOCT (2.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QSPT dropped -22.64% vs EOCT's -20.35%.

Which ETF is better, QSPT or EOCT?

On 3-year performance, QSPT leads with 16.98% vs 11.99% for EOCT. On fees, EOCT is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, EOCT has been the lower-risk option at 2.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QSPT or EOCT?

Over the 3-year period, QSPT has performed better with a 16.98% return vs 11.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QSPT or EOCT?

EOCT is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QSPT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QSPT or EOCT?

QSPT and EOCT have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between QSPT and EOCT?

QSPT is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while EOCT is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QSPT and 0.89% for EOCT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EOCT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.06 vs 1.64), 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.