BMAR vs. ALLW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BMAR (Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March) and ALLW (SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BMAR is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the S&P 500 Price Return Index, while ALLW is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by State Street. BMAR is passively managed, while ALLW is actively managed. Over the past year, BMAR returned 20.97% vs 23.78% for ALLW. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for ALLW.

Performance

BMAR vs. ALLW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (BMAR) and SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BMAR achieves a 8.62% return, which is significantly lower than ALLW's 9.20% return.

BMAR

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 2.82%
• YTD: 8.62%
• 6M: 9.58%
• 1Y: 20.97%
• 3Y*: 16.97%
• 5Y*: 12.18%
• 10Y*: —

ALLW

• 1D: -0.76%
• 1M: 0.91%
• YTD: 9.20%
• 6M: 8.47%
• 1Y: 23.78%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BMAR vs. ALLW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BMAR Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March	8.62%	14.82%
ALLW SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF	9.20%	15.04%

Correlation

The correlation between BMAR and ALLW is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 7, 2025	0.52

The correlation between BMAR and ALLW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.

BMAR vs. ALLW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BMAR	ALLW
Technology	36.2%	26.3%
Financial Services	11.9%	15.8%
Communication Services	10.9%	9.7%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	11.0%
Healthcare	8.4%	8.2%
Industrials	8.1%	9.2%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	5.9%
Energy	3.5%	4.9%
Utilities	2.3%	2.8%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.8%
Basic Materials	1.8%	4.6%

Return for Risk

BMAR vs. ALLW — Risk / Return Rank

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

BMAR

BMAR Risk / Return Rank: 86
BMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
BMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
BMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 90
BMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
BMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 90

ALLW

ALLW Risk / Return Rank: 67
ALLW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
ALLW Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
ALLW Omega Ratio Rank: 67
ALLW Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
ALLW Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

BMAR vs. ALLW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (BMAR) and SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW). 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.

	BMAR	ALLW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.85	2.27	+0.58
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.13	3.05	+1.08
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.41	+0.17
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.73	3.30	+0.43
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	20.88	14.01	+6.87
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BMAR vs. ALLW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BMAR Sharpe Ratio is 2.85, which is comparable to the ALLW Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BMAR and ALLW, 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

	BMAR	ALLW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.85	2.27	+0.58
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.08	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.96	1.62	-0.66

Drawdowns

BMAR vs. ALLW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BMAR drawdown since its inception was -21.43%, which is greater than ALLW's maximum drawdown of -8.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BMAR and ALLW.

Drawdown Indicators

	BMAR	ALLW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.43%	-8.78%	-12.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.64%	-7.23%	+1.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.86%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-15.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.26%	-0.79%	+0.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.34%	-1.20%	-1.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.01%	1.70%	-0.69%

Volatility

BMAR vs. ALLW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (BMAR) is 1.45%, while SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) has a volatility of 3.43%. This indicates that BMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ALLW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BMAR	ALLW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.45%	3.43%	-1.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.88%	8.71%	-2.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.39%	10.52%	-3.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.32%	12.54%	-1.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.67%	12.54%	+1.13%

BMAR vs. ALLW - Expense Ratio Comparison

BMAR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than ALLW's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

BMAR vs. ALLW - Dividend Comparison

BMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ALLW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.28%.

Position	TTM	2025
ALLW SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF	4.28%	4.67%
BMAR Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BMAR and ALLW in my portfolio?

BMAR and ALLW have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BMAR or ALLW?

ALLW has higher volatility (3.43%) compared to BMAR (1.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BMAR dropped -21.43% vs ALLW's -8.78%.

Which ETF is better, BMAR or ALLW?

On 1-year performance, ALLW leads with 23.78% vs 20.97% for BMAR. On fees, BMAR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, BMAR has been the lower-risk option at 1.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BMAR or ALLW?

Over the 1-year period, ALLW has performed better with a 23.78% return vs 20.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BMAR or ALLW?

BMAR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for ALLW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BMAR or ALLW?

ALLW has the higher dividend yield at 4.28%, compared with 0.00% for BMAR.

What is the main difference between BMAR and ALLW?

BMAR is categorized as Defined Outcome, while ALLW is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for BMAR and 0.85% for ALLW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.85 vs 2.27), 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.