QTJA vs. CAOS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QTJA (Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, QTJA returned 18.10%/yr vs 4.26%/yr for CAOS. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QTJA charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.

Performance

QTJA vs. CAOS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January (QTJA) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QTJA achieves a 10.75% return, which is significantly higher than CAOS's 0.82% return.

QTJA

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 3.73%
• YTD: 10.75%
• 6M: 11.53%
• 1Y: 26.02%
• 3Y*: 18.10%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CAOS

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: -0.09%
• YTD: 0.82%
• 6M: 0.69%
• 1Y: 1.88%
• 3Y*: 4.26%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QTJA vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QTJA Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January	10.75%	18.86%	18.47%	14.19%
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.82%	2.55%	5.33%	7.97%

Correlation

The correlation between QTJA and CAOS is -0.35, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.35
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 7, 2023	0.02

The correlation between QTJA and CAOS shifts across timeframes, from -0.35 (1 year) to 0.02 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QTJA vs. CAOS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QTJA	CAOS
Technology	54.2%	33.1%
Communication Services	15.5%	10.4%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	10.0%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	5.4%
Healthcare	4.2%	9.6%
Industrials	2.8%	8.5%
Utilities	1.4%	2.6%
Basic Materials	1.2%	1.9%
Energy	0.6%	4.1%
Financial Services	0.2%	12.4%
Real Estate	0.1%	2.0%

Return for Risk

QTJA vs. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank

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

QTJA

QTJA Risk / Return Rank: 74
QTJA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
QTJA Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
QTJA Omega Ratio Rank: 86
QTJA Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
QTJA Martin Ratio Rank: 75

CAOS

CAOS Risk / Return Rank: 40
CAOS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
CAOS Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
CAOS Omega Ratio Rank: 39
CAOS Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
CAOS Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

QTJA vs. CAOS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January (QTJA) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). 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.

	QTJA	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.44	1.24	+1.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.46	1.98	+1.48
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.26	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.68	2.49	+0.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.08	6.22	+7.86
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QTJA vs. CAOS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QTJA Sharpe Ratio is 2.44, which is higher than the CAOS Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QTJA and CAOS, 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

	QTJA	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.44	1.24	+1.20
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.28	1.21	-0.93

Drawdowns

QTJA vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QTJA drawdown since its inception was -36.07%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QTJA and CAOS.

Drawdown Indicators

	QTJA	CAOS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.07%	-3.60%	-32.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.75%	-0.76%	-8.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.73%	-3.60%	-18.13%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-1.07%	+1.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.29%	-0.90%	-12.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.85%	0.30%	+1.55%

Volatility

QTJA vs. CAOS - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January (QTJA) has a higher volatility of 1.57% compared to Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) at 0.26%. This indicates that QTJA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAOS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QTJA	CAOS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.57%	0.26%	+1.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.42%	1.03%	+8.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.72%	1.52%	+9.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.45%	4.26%	+16.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.45%	4.26%	+16.19%

QTJA vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison

QTJA has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

QTJA vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison

Neither QTJA nor CAOS has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QTJA and CAOS in my portfolio?

QTJA and CAOS have a correlation of -0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QTJA or CAOS?

QTJA has higher volatility (1.57%) compared to CAOS (0.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QTJA dropped -36.07% vs CAOS's -3.60%.

Which ETF is better, QTJA or CAOS?

On 3-year performance, QTJA leads with 18.10% vs 4.26% for CAOS. On fees, CAOS is cheaper at 0.63% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QTJA or CAOS?

Over the 3-year period, QTJA has performed better with a 18.10% return vs 4.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QTJA or CAOS?

CAOS is cheaper with a 0.63% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for QTJA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QTJA or CAOS?

QTJA and CAOS have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between QTJA and CAOS?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for QTJA and 0.63% for CAOS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QTJA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.44 vs 1.24), 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.