TRIO vs. QHDG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

TRIO (MC Trio Equity Buffered ETF) and QHDG (Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF) are both Equity Hedged funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, TRIO returned 13.43% vs 11.11% for QHDG. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TRIO charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for QHDG.

Performance

TRIO vs. QHDG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MC Trio Equity Buffered ETF (TRIO) and Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF (QHDG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TRIO achieves a 5.09% return, which is significantly higher than QHDG's 1.38% return.

TRIO

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: 0.04%
• YTD: 5.09%
• 6M: 4.67%
• 1Y: 13.43%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QHDG

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: 0.47%
• YTD: 1.38%
• 6M: 0.17%
• 1Y: 11.11%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TRIO vs. QHDG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
TRIO MC Trio Equity Buffered ETF	5.09%	11.70%
QHDG Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF	1.38%	13.08%

Correlation

The correlation between TRIO and QHDG is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2025	0.81

The correlation between TRIO and QHDG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

TRIO vs. QHDG — Risk / Return Rank

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

TRIO

TRIO Risk / Return Rank: 77
TRIO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
TRIO Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
TRIO Omega Ratio Rank: 80
TRIO Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
TRIO Martin Ratio Rank: 82

QHDG

QHDG Risk / Return Rank: 38
QHDG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
QHDG Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
QHDG Omega Ratio Rank: 42
QHDG Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
QHDG Martin Ratio Rank: 38

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.

TRIO vs. QHDG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MC Trio Equity Buffered ETF (TRIO) and Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF (QHDG). 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.

	TRIO	QHDG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.17	1.27	+0.90
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.17	1.74	+1.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.25	+0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.02	1.60	+1.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.06	5.42	+9.64

TRIO vs. QHDG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TRIO Sharpe Ratio is 2.17, which is higher than the QHDG Sharpe Ratio of 1.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TRIO and QHDG, 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

TRIO vs. QHDG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TRIO drawdown since its inception was -9.88%, smaller than the maximum QHDG drawdown of -15.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TRIO and QHDG.

Drawdown Indicators

	TRIO	QHDG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.88%	-15.29%	+5.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.47%	-7.00%	+2.53%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.78%	-0.66%	-0.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.78%	-2.11%	+1.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.89%	2.06%	-1.17%

Volatility

TRIO vs. QHDG - Volatility Comparison

MC Trio Equity Buffered ETF (TRIO) has a higher volatility of 1.77% compared to Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF (QHDG) at 0.32%. This indicates that TRIO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QHDG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TRIO	QHDG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.77%	0.32%	+1.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.00%	5.89%	-0.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.24%	8.77%	-2.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.58%	12.25%	-1.67%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.58%	12.25%	-1.67%

TRIO vs. QHDG - Expense Ratio Comparison

TRIO has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is lower than QHDG's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

TRIO vs. QHDG - Dividend Comparison

TRIO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.57%, while QHDG has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
QHDG Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.02%
TRIO MC Trio Equity Buffered ETF	8.57%	9.01%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TRIO and QHDG in my portfolio?

TRIO and QHDG have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TRIO or QHDG?

TRIO has higher volatility (1.77%) compared to QHDG (0.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TRIO dropped -9.88% vs QHDG's -15.29%.

Which ETF is better, TRIO or QHDG?

On 1-year performance, TRIO leads with 13.43% vs 11.11% for QHDG. On fees, TRIO is cheaper at 0.70% per year. On volatility, QHDG has been the lower-risk option at 0.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TRIO or QHDG?

Over the 1-year period, TRIO has performed better with a 13.43% return vs 11.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TRIO or QHDG?

TRIO is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for QHDG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TRIO or QHDG?

TRIO has the higher dividend yield at 8.57%, compared with 0.00% for QHDG.

What is the main difference between TRIO and QHDG?

They also come from different issuers: ETF Architect and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for TRIO and 0.79% for QHDG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TRIO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs 1.27), 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.