XDQQ vs. BAPR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

XDQQ (Innovator Growth Accelerated ETF - Quarterly) and BAPR (Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - April) are both exchange-traded funds - XDQQ is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by Innovator, while BAPR is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the Cboe S&P 500 Buffer Protect Index April. XDQQ is actively managed, while BAPR is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XDQQ returned 7.88%/yr vs 10.86%/yr for BAPR. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.79% expense ratio.

Performance

XDQQ vs. BAPR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth Accelerated ETF - Quarterly (XDQQ) and Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - April (BAPR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XDQQ achieves a 2.83% return, which is significantly lower than BAPR's 10.04% return.

XDQQ

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.56%
• YTD: 2.83%
• 6M: 1.08%
• 1Y: 16.74%
• 3Y*: 17.58%
• 5Y*: 7.88%
• 10Y*: —

BAPR

• 1D: -0.67%
• 1M: -0.06%
• YTD: 10.04%
• 6M: 10.03%
• 1Y: 18.64%
• 3Y*: 14.48%
• 5Y*: 10.86%
• 10Y*: —

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

XDQQ vs. BAPR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
XDQQ Innovator Growth Accelerated ETF - Quarterly	2.83%	13.75%	31.47%	30.15%	-33.74%	18.52%
BAPR Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - April	10.04%	8.28%	15.95%	23.16%	-7.04%	11.08%

Correlation

The correlation between XDQQ and BAPR 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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2021	0.87

The correlation between XDQQ and BAPR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

XDQQ vs. BAPR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XDQQ	BAPR
Technology	50.7%	38.4%
Communication Services	15.8%	10.8%
Consumer Cyclical	12.5%	10.0%
Consumer Defensive	8.7%	4.6%
Healthcare	5.1%	8.4%
Industrials	3.3%	7.9%
Utilities	1.6%	2.1%
Basic Materials	1.3%	1.7%
Energy	0.7%	3.2%
Financial Services	0.2%	11.0%
Real Estate	0.1%	1.8%

Return for Risk

XDQQ vs. BAPR — Risk / Return Rank

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

XDQQ

XDQQ Risk / Return Rank: 36
XDQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
XDQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
XDQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 39
XDQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
XDQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 42

BAPR

BAPR Risk / Return Rank: 96
BAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
BAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
BAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
BAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
BAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

XDQQ vs. BAPR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth Accelerated ETF - Quarterly (XDQQ) and Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - April (BAPR). 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.

	XDQQ	BAPR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.22	3.24	-2.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.67	5.31	-3.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.76	-0.51
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.42	9.69	-8.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.45	47.41	-40.96

XDQQ vs. BAPR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XDQQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.22, which is lower than the BAPR Sharpe Ratio of 3.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XDQQ and BAPR, 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

XDQQ vs. BAPR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XDQQ drawdown since its inception was -35.63%, which is greater than BAPR's maximum drawdown of -23.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XDQQ and BAPR.

Drawdown Indicators

	XDQQ	BAPR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.63%	-23.91%	-11.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.84%	-1.93%	-9.91%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.17%	-15.58%	-7.59%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.63%	-15.58%	-20.05%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.06%	-0.93%	+0.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.72%	-2.58%	-8.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.60%	0.39%	+2.21%

Volatility

XDQQ vs. BAPR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Growth Accelerated ETF - Quarterly (XDQQ) is 0.64%, while Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - April (BAPR) has a volatility of 2.06%. This indicates that XDQQ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BAPR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XDQQ	BAPR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.64%	2.06%	-1.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.31%	4.91%	+5.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.80%	5.79%	+8.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.80%	11.51%	+8.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.55%	13.09%	+6.46%

XDQQ vs. BAPR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both XDQQ and BAPR have an expense ratio of 0.79%.

Dividends

XDQQ vs. BAPR - Dividend Comparison

Neither XDQQ nor BAPR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XDQQ and BAPR in my portfolio?

XDQQ and BAPR 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, XDQQ or BAPR?

BAPR has higher volatility (2.06%) compared to XDQQ (0.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XDQQ dropped -35.63% vs BAPR's -23.91%.

Which ETF is better, XDQQ or BAPR?

On 5-year performance, BAPR leads with 10.86% vs 7.88% for XDQQ. Both ETFs have the same 0.79% expense ratio. On volatility, XDQQ 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, XDQQ or BAPR?

Over the 5-year period, BAPR has performed better with a 10.86% return vs 7.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XDQQ or BAPR?

XDQQ and BAPR have the same expense ratio: 0.79% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, XDQQ or BAPR?

XDQQ and BAPR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between XDQQ and BAPR?

XDQQ is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while BAPR is Defined Outcome.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.24 vs 1.22), 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.