STEN vs. QB

Last updated Jul 11, 2026

STEN (iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Sep ETF) and QB (ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. STEN is actively managed, while QB is passively managed. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. STEN charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for QB.

Performance

STEN vs. QB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Sep ETF (STEN) and ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, STEN achieves a 8.76% return, which is significantly lower than QB's 12.30% return.

STEN

• 1D: 0.28%
• 1M: 2.21%
• 6M: 7.40%
• YTD: 8.76%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QB

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 3.56%
• 6M: 11.02%
• YTD: 12.30%
• 1Y: 18.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

STEN vs. QB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
STEN iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Sep ETF	8.76%	2.36%
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF	12.30%	2.93%

Correlation

The correlation between STEN and QB is 0.80, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2025	0.80

Return for Risk

STEN vs. QB — Risk / Return Rank

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

STEN

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

QB

QB Risk / Return Rank: 94
QB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QB Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
QB Omega Ratio Rank: 96
QB Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
QB Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

STEN vs. QB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Sep ETF (STEN) and ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB). 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.

	STEN	QB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.63	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.83	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.63	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	5.30	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	25.59	—

Drawdowns

STEN vs. QB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum STEN drawdown since its inception was -6.21%, which is greater than QB's maximum drawdown of -3.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for STEN and QB.

Drawdown Indicators

	STEN	QB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-6.21%	-3.47%	-2.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-3.47%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.17%	+0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.91%	-0.42%	-0.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.72%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	STEN	QB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	3.07%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	5.83%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.28%	7.02%	+2.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.28%	6.94%	+2.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.28%	6.94%	+2.34%

STEN vs. QB - Expense Ratio Comparison

STEN has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than QB's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

STEN vs. QB - Dividend Comparison

STEN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.29%, less than QB's 0.78% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF	0.78%	0.48%
STEN iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Sep ETF	0.29%	0.31%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both STEN and QB in my portfolio?

STEN and QB have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, STEN or QB?

On fees, STEN is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, STEN or QB?

STEN is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for QB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, STEN or QB?

QB has the higher dividend yield at 0.78%, compared with 0.29% for STEN.

What is the main difference between STEN and QB?

They also come from different issuers: BlackRock and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for STEN and 0.58% for QB.