QTJA vs. EOCT

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

QTJA (Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January) and EOCT (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October) are both Options Trading funds from Innovator. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, QTJA returned 18.11%/yr vs 13.48%/yr for EOCT. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QTJA charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EOCT.

Performance

QTJA vs. EOCT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January (QTJA) 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, QTJA achieves a 10.80% return, which is significantly higher than EOCT's 7.94% return.

QTJA

• 1D: -0.00%
• 1M: 3.65%
• YTD: 10.80%
• 6M: 11.65%
• 1Y: 26.80%
• 3Y*: 18.11%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EOCT

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 1.48%
• YTD: 7.94%
• 6M: 9.50%
• 1Y: 25.66%
• 3Y*: 13.48%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QTJA vs. EOCT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
QTJA Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January	10.80%	18.86%	18.47%	25.56%	-34.58%
EOCT Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October	7.94%	22.03%	9.66%	6.26%	-11.13%

Correlation

The correlation between QTJA and EOCT is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 4, 2022	0.58

The correlation between QTJA and EOCT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

QTJA vs. EOCT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QTJA	EOCT
Technology	54.2%	37.0%
Communication Services	15.5%	6.9%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	3.0%
Healthcare	4.2%	2.9%
Industrials	2.8%	7.5%
Utilities	1.4%	2.1%
Basic Materials	1.2%	6.5%
Energy	0.6%	4.0%
Financial Services	0.2%	19.4%
Real Estate	0.1%	1.1%

Return for Risk

QTJA vs. EOCT — 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: 75
QTJA Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
QTJA Omega Ratio Rank: 85
QTJA Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
QTJA Martin Ratio Rank: 76

EOCT

EOCT Risk / Return Rank: 85
EOCT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
EOCT Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
EOCT Omega Ratio Rank: 88
EOCT Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
EOCT Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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. EOCT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January (QTJA) 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.

	QTJA	EOCT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.51	2.85	-0.34
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.55	3.97	-0.43
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	1.55	-0.02
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.81	4.40	-1.59
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	14.80	17.68	-2.88
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. EOCT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QTJA Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is comparable to the EOCT Sharpe Ratio of 2.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QTJA 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QTJA	EOCT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.51	2.85	-0.34
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.28	0.61	-0.33

Drawdowns

QTJA vs. EOCT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QTJA drawdown since its inception was -36.07%, which is greater than EOCT's maximum drawdown of -20.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QTJA and EOCT.

Drawdown Indicators

	QTJA	EOCT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.07%	-20.35%	-15.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.75%	-5.93%	-3.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.73%	-10.76%	-10.97%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.30%	-5.70%	-7.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.85%	1.47%	+0.38%

Volatility

QTJA vs. EOCT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - January (QTJA) is 1.58%, while Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT) has a volatility of 1.76%. This indicates that QTJA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EOCT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QTJA	EOCT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.58%	1.76%	-0.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.42%	6.68%	+2.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.73%	9.05%	+1.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.45%	11.31%	+9.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.45%	11.31%	+9.14%

QTJA vs. EOCT - Expense Ratio Comparison

QTJA has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than EOCT's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

QTJA vs. EOCT - Dividend Comparison

Neither QTJA nor EOCT has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QTJA and EOCT in my portfolio?

QTJA and EOCT have a correlation of 0.64, 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 EOCT?

EOCT has higher volatility (1.76%) compared to QTJA (1.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QTJA dropped -36.07% vs EOCT's -20.35%.

Which ETF is better, QTJA or EOCT?

On 3-year performance, QTJA leads with 18.11% vs 13.48% for EOCT. On fees, QTJA is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, QTJA has been the lower-risk option at 1.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QTJA or EOCT?

Over the 3-year period, QTJA has performed better with a 18.11% return vs 13.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QTJA or EOCT?

QTJA is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for EOCT.

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

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

What is the main difference between QTJA and EOCT?

Their fees differ too: 0.79% for QTJA and 0.89% for EOCT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EOCT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.85 vs 2.51), 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.