XBOC vs. PBFR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XBOC (Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - October) and PBFR (PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, XBOC returned 13.69% vs 12.83% for PBFR. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XBOC charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PBFR.

Performance

XBOC vs. PBFR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - October (XBOC) and PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF (PBFR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XBOC achieves a 5.40% return, which is significantly higher than PBFR's 4.52% return.

XBOC

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: 1.89%
• YTD: 5.40%
• 6M: 6.20%
• 1Y: 13.69%
• 3Y*: 11.67%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PBFR

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: 1.58%
• YTD: 4.52%
• 6M: 5.34%
• 1Y: 12.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XBOC vs. PBFR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
XBOC Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - October	5.40%	11.15%	3.46%
PBFR PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF	4.52%	10.44%	5.53%

Correlation

The correlation between XBOC and PBFR is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 14, 2024	0.81

The correlation between XBOC and PBFR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

XBOC vs. PBFR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XBOC	PBFR
Technology	36.2%	36.2%
Financial Services	11.9%	11.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	10.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	8.4%
Industrials	8.1%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.9%
Energy	3.5%	3.5%
Utilities	2.3%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.8%

Return for Risk

XBOC vs. PBFR — Risk / Return Rank

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

XBOC

XBOC Risk / Return Rank: 69
XBOC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
XBOC Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
XBOC Omega Ratio Rank: 78
XBOC Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
XBOC Martin Ratio Rank: 78

PBFR

PBFR Risk / Return Rank: 90
PBFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
PBFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
PBFR Omega Ratio Rank: 93
PBFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
PBFR Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

XBOC vs. PBFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - October (XBOC) and PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF (PBFR). 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.

	XBOC	PBFR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.15	2.99	-0.84
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.12	4.36	-1.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.66	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.75	4.57	-1.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.85	24.09	-9.24
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XBOC vs. PBFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XBOC Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is comparable to the PBFR Sharpe Ratio of 2.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XBOC and PBFR, 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

	XBOC	PBFR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.15	2.99	-0.84
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.86	1.54	-0.68

Drawdowns

XBOC vs. PBFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XBOC drawdown since its inception was -13.35%, which is greater than PBFR's maximum drawdown of -8.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBOC and PBFR.

Drawdown Indicators

	XBOC	PBFR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.35%	-8.50%	-4.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.99%	-2.82%	-2.17%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.53%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.11%	-0.16%	+0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.08%	-0.63%	-1.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.92%	0.53%	+0.39%

Volatility

XBOC vs. PBFR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - October (XBOC) has a higher volatility of 0.78% compared to PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF (PBFR) at 0.64%. This indicates that XBOC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PBFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XBOC	PBFR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.78%	0.64%	+0.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.19%	3.34%	+1.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.41%	4.33%	+2.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.90%	6.89%	+3.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.90%	6.89%	+3.01%

XBOC vs. PBFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

XBOC has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than PBFR's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

XBOC vs. PBFR - Dividend Comparison

XBOC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PBFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
PBFR PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%
XBOC Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - October	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XBOC and PBFR in my portfolio?

XBOC and PBFR have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XBOC or PBFR?

XBOC has higher volatility (0.78%) compared to PBFR (0.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XBOC dropped -13.35% vs PBFR's -8.50%.

Which ETF is better, XBOC or PBFR?

On 1-year performance, XBOC leads with 13.69% vs 12.83% for PBFR. On fees, PBFR is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PBFR has been the lower-risk option at 0.64%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XBOC or PBFR?

Over the 1-year period, XBOC has performed better with a 13.69% return vs 12.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XBOC or PBFR?

PBFR is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for XBOC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, XBOC or PBFR?

PBFR has the higher dividend yield at 0.01%, compared with 0.00% for XBOC.

What is the main difference between XBOC and PBFR?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for XBOC and 0.50% for PBFR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PBFR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.99 vs 2.15), 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.