BMAR vs. BAUG

Last updated Jun 10, 2026

BMAR (Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March) and BAUG (Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - August) are both Defined Outcome funds from Innovator - BMAR tracks the S&P 500 Price Return Index while BAUG tracks the Cboe S&P 500 Buffer Protect Index August. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BMAR returned 11.86%/yr vs 10.96%/yr for BAUG. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.79% expense ratio.

Performance

BMAR vs. BAUG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BMAR achieves a 7.31% return, which is significantly higher than BAUG's 5.83% return.

BMAR

• 1D: -0.25%
• 1M: 0.18%
• YTD: 7.31%
• 6M: 8.16%
• 1Y: 18.92%
• 3Y*: 16.36%
• 5Y*: 11.86%
• 10Y*: —

BAUG

• 1D: -0.08%
• 1M: 0.60%
• YTD: 5.83%
• 6M: 6.42%
• 1Y: 18.39%
• 3Y*: 17.57%
• 5Y*: 10.96%
• 10Y*: —

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

BMAR vs. BAUG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BMAR Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March	7.31%	14.97%	16.49%	23.09%	-7.06%	16.79%	12.50%
BAUG Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - August	5.83%	14.81%	21.15%	20.11%	-10.30%	12.06%	19.09%

Correlation

The correlation between BMAR and BAUG is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 2, 2020	0.94

The correlation between BMAR and BAUG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

BMAR vs. BAUG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BMAR	BAUG
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

BMAR vs. BAUG — 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: 88
BMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
BMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 90
BMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
BMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 90

BAUG

BAUG Risk / Return Rank: 84
BAUG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
BAUG Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
BAUG Omega Ratio Rank: 87
BAUG Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
BAUG Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. BAUG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (BMAR) and Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - August (BAUG). 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	BAUG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.54	2.39	+0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.64	3.44	+0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.47	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.37	3.27	+0.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.64	16.53	+2.11
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. BAUG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BMAR Sharpe Ratio is 2.54, which is comparable to the BAUG Sharpe Ratio of 2.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BMAR and BAUG, 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	BAUG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.54	2.39	+0.16
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.05	0.94	+0.11
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.96	0.83	+0.13

Drawdowns

BMAR vs. BAUG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BMAR drawdown since its inception was -21.43%, smaller than the maximum BAUG drawdown of -24.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BMAR and BAUG.

Drawdown Indicators

	BMAR	BAUG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.43%	-24.19%	+2.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.64%	-5.66%	+0.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.86%	-13.78%	+0.92%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-15.02%	-15.59%	+0.57%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.46%	-0.76%	-0.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.34%	-2.84%	+0.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.02%	1.12%	-0.10%

Volatility

BMAR vs. BAUG - Volatility Comparison

Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (BMAR) has a higher volatility of 1.79% compared to Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - August (BAUG) at 1.13%. This indicates that BMAR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BAUG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BMAR	BAUG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.79%	1.13%	+0.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.05%	5.88%	+0.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.47%	7.74%	-0.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.33%	11.71%	-0.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.67%	13.94%	-0.27%

BMAR vs. BAUG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BMAR and BAUG have an expense ratio of 0.79%.

Dividends

BMAR vs. BAUG - Dividend Comparison

Neither BMAR nor BAUG has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BMAR and BAUG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, BMAR and BAUG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, BMAR or BAUG?

BMAR has higher volatility (1.79%) compared to BAUG (1.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BMAR dropped -21.43% vs BAUG's -24.19%.

Which ETF is better, BMAR or BAUG?

On 5-year performance, BMAR leads with 11.86% vs 10.96% for BAUG. Both ETFs have the same 0.79% expense ratio. On volatility, BAUG has been the lower-risk option at 1.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BMAR or BAUG?

Over the 5-year period, BMAR has performed better with a 11.86% return vs 10.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BMAR or BAUG?

BMAR and BAUG have the same expense ratio: 0.79% per year.

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

BMAR and BAUG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BMAR and BAUG?

BMAR tracks S&P 500 Price Return Index, while BAUG tracks Cboe S&P 500 Buffer Protect Index August.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.54 vs 2.39), 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.