BFRZ vs DOCT
Innovator Equity Managed 100 Buffer ETF vs FT Vest US Equity Deep Buffer ETF - October
Which is better, BFRZ or DOCT?
DOCT has been ahead.
DOCT has a lower expense ratio. DOCT led over 1Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BFRZ | DOCT |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.89% | 0.85%Best |
| AUM | $147M | $402M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.25% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 567 | 10 |
| YTD Return | +1.76% | +8.89%Best |
| 1Y Return | +3.04% | +11.21%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +10.88% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +8.29% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 4.0%Best | 5.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -3.1%Best | -4.3% |
| $10,000 over 1.4 years | $10,916 | $12,160Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | First Trust Portfolios (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Option Writing | Option Writing |
| Inception | May 13, 2025 | Oct 16, 2020 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.4 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: May 13, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.4 years).
BFRZ vs DOCT growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 1.4 years both funds cover.
BFRZ vs DOCT Performance
Innovator Equity Managed 100 Buffer ETF (BFRZ) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and FT Vest US Equity Deep Buffer ETF - October (DOCT) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year BFRZ returned +3.04% while DOCT returned +11.21%. Year to date, BFRZ is up 1.76% versus a gain of 8.89% for DOCT.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
DOCT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 5.5% compared with 4.0% for BFRZ. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -3.1% for BFRZ and -4.3% for DOCT. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.56. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BFRZ charges 0.89% per year while DOCT charges 0.85%. On a $10,000 position that is $89 vs $85 annually, a gap of $4 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BFRZ currently yields 0.25% against 0.00% for DOCT.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BFRZ and DOCT you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BFRZ or DOCT?
BFRZ has an expense ratio of 0.89% while DOCT charges 0.85%. DOCT is the cheaper option, by $4 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BFRZ or DOCT?
Over the past year BFRZ returned +3.04% vs +11.21% for DOCT, so DOCT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), BFRZ annualized +6.46% vs +14.99% for DOCT. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BFRZ or DOCT?
DOCT has been the more volatile fund at 5.5% annualized versus 4.0% for BFRZ. Worst drawdown: BFRZ -3.1% vs DOCT -4.3%.
Should I hold both BFRZ and DOCT?
BFRZ and DOCT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.56, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, BFRZ or DOCT?
BFRZ yields 0.25% while DOCT yields 0.00%, so BFRZ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is DOCT better than BFRZ?
DOCT has a lower expense ratio. DOCT led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.