UFEB vs. QB

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

UFEB (Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - February) and QB (ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds - UFEB tracks the Cboe S&P 500 30% (-5% to -35%) Buffer Protect February Series Index while QB tracks the Nasdaq-100. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, UFEB returned 12.67% vs 18.61% for QB. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. UFEB charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for QB.

Performance

UFEB vs. QB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - February (UFEB) 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, UFEB achieves a 5.55% return, which is significantly lower than QB's 12.42% return.

UFEB

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 0.42%
• 6M: 4.96%
• YTD: 5.55%
• 1Y: 12.67%
• 3Y*: 11.47%
• 5Y*: 7.20%
• 10Y*: —

QB

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 2.44%
• 6M: 11.41%
• YTD: 12.42%
• 1Y: 18.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

UFEB vs. QB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
UFEB Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - February	5.55%	8.10%
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF	12.42%	6.10%

Correlation

The correlation between UFEB and QB is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025	0.74

The correlation between UFEB and QB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

UFEB vs. QB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UFEB	QB
Technology	38.4%	49.9%
Financial Services	11.0%	0.2%
Communication Services	10.8%	16.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	12.5%
Healthcare	8.4%	5.3%
Industrials	7.9%	3.7%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	8.6%
Energy	3.2%	0.6%
Utilities	2.1%	1.6%
Real Estate	1.8%	0.1%
Basic Materials	1.7%	1.3%

Return for Risk

UFEB vs. QB — Risk / Return Rank

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

UFEB

UFEB Risk / Return Rank: 87
UFEB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
UFEB Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
UFEB Omega Ratio Rank: 91
UFEB Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
UFEB Martin Ratio Rank: 89

QB

QB Risk / Return Rank: 94
QB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QB Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
QB Omega Ratio Rank: 95
QB Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
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.

UFEB vs. QB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - February (UFEB) 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.

	UFEB	QB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.34	2.66	-0.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.38	3.87	-0.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.63	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.26	5.38	-2.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.69	25.93	-10.24

UFEB vs. QB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UFEB Sharpe Ratio is 2.34, which is comparable to the QB Sharpe Ratio of 2.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UFEB and QB, 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

UFEB vs. QB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UFEB drawdown since its inception was -13.32%, which is greater than QB's maximum drawdown of -3.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UFEB and QB.

Drawdown Indicators

	UFEB	QB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.32%	-3.47%	-9.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.90%	-3.47%	-0.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.69%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-9.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.17%	-0.22%	+0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.90%	-0.42%	-1.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.81%	0.72%	+0.09%

Volatility

UFEB vs. QB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - February (UFEB) is 1.47%, while ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB) has a volatility of 2.71%. This indicates that UFEB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UFEB	QB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.47%	2.71%	-1.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.17%	5.83%	-1.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.43%	7.03%	-1.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.33%	6.91%	-0.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.62%	6.91%	+0.71%

UFEB vs. QB - Expense Ratio Comparison

UFEB has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than QB's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

UFEB vs. QB - Dividend Comparison

UFEB has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.77%.

Position	TTM	2025
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF	0.77%	0.48%
UFEB Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - February	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UFEB and QB in my portfolio?

UFEB and QB have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UFEB or QB?

QB has higher volatility (2.71%) compared to UFEB (1.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UFEB dropped -13.32% vs QB's -3.47%.

Which ETF is better, UFEB or QB?

On 1-year performance, QB leads with 18.61% vs 12.67% for UFEB. On fees, QB is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, UFEB has been the lower-risk option at 1.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UFEB or QB?

Over the 1-year period, QB has performed better with a 18.61% return vs 12.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UFEB or QB?

QB is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for UFEB.

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

QB has the higher dividend yield at 0.77%, compared with 0.00% for UFEB.

What is the main difference between UFEB and QB?

UFEB tracks Cboe S&P 500 30% (-5% to -35%) Buffer Protect February Series Index, while QB tracks Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for UFEB and 0.58% for QB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.66 vs 2.34), 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.