UMAY vs. QFLR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

UMAY (Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - May) and QFLR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UMAY is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the S&P 500, while QFLR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Innovator. UMAY is passively managed, while QFLR is actively managed. Over the past year, UMAY returned 10.48% vs 26.98% for QFLR. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. UMAY charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for QFLR.

Performance

UMAY vs. QFLR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - May (UMAY) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UMAY achieves a 3.93% return, which is significantly lower than QFLR's 6.90% return.

UMAY

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: 1.86%
• YTD: 3.93%
• 6M: 4.74%
• 1Y: 10.48%
• 3Y*: 11.51%
• 5Y*: 6.49%
• 10Y*: —

QFLR

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 3.99%
• YTD: 6.90%
• 6M: 5.88%
• 1Y: 26.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

UMAY vs. QFLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
UMAY Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - May	3.93%	8.79%	13.08%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	6.90%	17.27%	16.64%

Correlation

The correlation between UMAY and QFLR is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 26, 2024	0.78

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

UMAY vs. QFLR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UMAY	QFLR
Technology	36.2%	50.8%
Financial Services	11.9%	0.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	18.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	12.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	3.2%
Industrials	8.1%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	9.2%
Energy	3.5%	1.1%
Utilities	2.3%	1.5%
Real Estate	1.9%	-
Basic Materials	1.8%	0.0%

Return for Risk

UMAY vs. QFLR — Risk / Return Rank

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

UMAY

UMAY Risk / Return Rank: 93
UMAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
UMAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
UMAY Omega Ratio Rank: 94
UMAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
UMAY Martin Ratio Rank: 96

QFLR

QFLR Risk / Return Rank: 74
QFLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QFLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
QFLR Omega Ratio Rank: 74
QFLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
QFLR Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

UMAY vs. QFLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - May (UMAY) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). 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.

	UMAY	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.99	2.41	+0.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.63	3.26	+1.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.67	1.44	+0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.71	3.56	+4.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	39.51	15.19	+24.32
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

UMAY vs. QFLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UMAY Sharpe Ratio is 2.99, which is comparable to the QFLR Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UMAY and QFLR, 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

	UMAY	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.99	2.41	+0.58
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.77	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.86	1.40	-0.54

Drawdowns

UMAY vs. QFLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMAY drawdown since its inception was -12.12%, smaller than the maximum QFLR drawdown of -13.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMAY and QFLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	UMAY	QFLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.12%	-13.97%	+1.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.36%	-7.61%	+6.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.49%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-12.12%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.27%	-0.48%	+0.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.14%	-2.50%	+0.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.27%	1.78%	-1.51%

Volatility

UMAY vs. QFLR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - May (UMAY) is 1.20%, while Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) has a volatility of 2.53%. This indicates that UMAY experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QFLR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UMAY	QFLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.20%	2.53%	-1.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.40%	8.05%	-5.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.53%	11.28%	-7.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.46%	12.62%	-4.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.93%	12.62%	-4.69%

UMAY vs. QFLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

UMAY has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than QFLR's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

UMAY vs. QFLR - Dividend Comparison

Neither UMAY nor QFLR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	0.00%	0.02%	0.03%
UMAY Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - May	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UMAY and QFLR in my portfolio?

UMAY and QFLR have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UMAY or QFLR?

QFLR has higher volatility (2.53%) compared to UMAY (1.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMAY dropped -12.12% vs QFLR's -13.97%.

Which ETF is better, UMAY or QFLR?

On 1-year performance, QFLR leads with 26.98% vs 10.48% for UMAY. On fees, UMAY is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, UMAY has been the lower-risk option at 1.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UMAY or QFLR?

Over the 1-year period, QFLR has performed better with a 26.98% return vs 10.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UMAY or QFLR?

UMAY is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for QFLR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, UMAY or QFLR?

UMAY and QFLR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between UMAY and QFLR?

UMAY is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QFLR is Nasdaq-100. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for UMAY and 0.89% for QFLR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMAY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.99 vs 2.41), 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.