QTOC vs. IVVB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QTOC (Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - October) and IVVB (iShares Large Cap Deep Buffer ETF) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QTOC returned 22.99% vs 14.57% for IVVB. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QTOC charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IVVB.

Performance

QTOC vs. IVVB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - October (QTOC) and iShares Large Cap Deep Buffer ETF (IVVB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QTOC achieves a 10.79% return, which is significantly higher than IVVB's 4.57% return.

QTOC

• 1D: -0.08%
• 1M: 3.29%
• YTD: 10.79%
• 6M: 10.99%
• 1Y: 22.99%
• 3Y*: 19.15%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IVVB

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: 1.91%
• YTD: 4.57%
• 6M: 4.37%
• 1Y: 14.57%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QTOC vs. IVVB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QTOC Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - October	10.79%	16.79%	14.90%	12.35%
IVVB iShares Large Cap Deep Buffer ETF	4.57%	9.60%	18.66%	2.60%

Correlation

The correlation between QTOC and IVVB is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 3, 2023	0.78

The correlation between QTOC and IVVB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

QTOC vs. IVVB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QTOC	IVVB
Technology	54.2%	35.6%
Communication Services	15.5%	11.2%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	10.1%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	4.9%
Healthcare	4.2%	8.5%
Industrials	2.8%	8.3%
Utilities	1.4%	2.4%
Basic Materials	1.2%	1.8%
Energy	0.6%	3.5%
Financial Services	0.2%	11.8%
Real Estate	0.1%	1.9%

Return for Risk

QTOC vs. IVVB — Risk / Return Rank

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

QTOC

QTOC Risk / Return Rank: 58
QTOC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
QTOC Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
QTOC Omega Ratio Rank: 65
QTOC Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
QTOC Martin Ratio Rank: 65

IVVB

IVVB Risk / Return Rank: 58
IVVB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
IVVB Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
IVVB Omega Ratio Rank: 63
IVVB Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
IVVB Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

QTOC vs. IVVB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - October (QTOC) and iShares Large Cap Deep Buffer ETF (IVVB). 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.

	QTOC	IVVB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.85	2.02	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.66	2.82	-0.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.39	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.40	2.55	-0.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.68	10.94	+0.74
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QTOC vs. IVVB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QTOC Sharpe Ratio is 1.85, which is comparable to the IVVB Sharpe Ratio of 2.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QTOC and IVVB, 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

	QTOC	IVVB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.85	2.02	-0.17
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.50	1.31	-0.81

Drawdowns

QTOC vs. IVVB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QTOC drawdown since its inception was -33.43%, which is greater than IVVB's maximum drawdown of -13.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QTOC and IVVB.

Drawdown Indicators

	QTOC	IVVB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.43%	-13.08%	-20.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.63%	-5.75%	-3.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.24%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.16%	-0.15%	-0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.50%	-1.61%	-6.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.97%	1.34%	+0.63%

Volatility

QTOC vs. IVVB - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - October (QTOC) has a higher volatility of 1.26% compared to iShares Large Cap Deep Buffer ETF (IVVB) at 0.74%. This indicates that QTOC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IVVB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QTOC	IVVB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.26%	0.74%	+0.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.34%	5.49%	+4.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.49%	7.27%	+5.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.77%	9.28%	+10.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.77%	9.28%	+10.49%

QTOC vs. IVVB - Expense Ratio Comparison

QTOC has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than IVVB's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

QTOC vs. IVVB - Dividend Comparison

QTOC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IVVB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.17%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
IVVB iShares Large Cap Deep Buffer ETF	1.17%	1.22%	0.87%
QTOC Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - October	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QTOC and IVVB in my portfolio?

QTOC and IVVB have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QTOC or IVVB?

QTOC has higher volatility (1.26%) compared to IVVB (0.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QTOC dropped -33.43% vs IVVB's -13.08%.

Which ETF is better, QTOC or IVVB?

On 1-year performance, QTOC leads with 22.99% vs 14.57% for IVVB. On fees, IVVB is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, IVVB has been the lower-risk option at 0.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QTOC or IVVB?

Over the 1-year period, QTOC has performed better with a 22.99% return vs 14.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QTOC or IVVB?

IVVB is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for QTOC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QTOC or IVVB?

IVVB has the higher dividend yield at 1.17%, compared with 0.00% for QTOC.

What is the main difference between QTOC and IVVB?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for QTOC and 0.50% for IVVB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IVVB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.02 vs 1.85), 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.