BOCT vs. TMAR

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

BOCT (Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF October) and TMAR (FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March) are both Defined Outcome funds - BOCT tracks the S&P 500 Price Return Index while TMAR tracks the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) Price Return. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, BOCT returned 20.96% vs 30.47% for TMAR. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BOCT charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for TMAR.

Performance

BOCT vs. TMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF October (BOCT) and FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BOCT achieves a 7.34% return, which is significantly lower than TMAR's 15.28% return.

BOCT

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 2.79%
• YTD: 7.34%
• 6M: 8.06%
• 1Y: 20.96%
• 3Y*: 14.64%
• 5Y*: 10.67%
• 10Y*: —

TMAR

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 3.39%
• YTD: 15.28%
• 6M: 16.87%
• 1Y: 30.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BOCT vs. TMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BOCT Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF October	7.34%	15.23%
TMAR FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March	15.28%	14.71%

Correlation

The correlation between BOCT and TMAR is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 25, 2025	0.62

The correlation between BOCT and TMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BOCT vs. TMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BOCT

BOCT Risk / Return Rank: 78
BOCT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
BOCT Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
BOCT Omega Ratio Rank: 82
BOCT Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
BOCT Martin Ratio Rank: 82

TMAR

TMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
TMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
TMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
TMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
TMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
TMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

BOCT vs. TMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF October (BOCT) and FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR). 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.

	BOCT	TMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.57	3.24	-0.67
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.61	4.90	-1.29
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.82	-0.32
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.49	8.56	-5.07
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	16.80	41.51	-24.72
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BOCT vs. TMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BOCT Sharpe Ratio is 2.57, which is comparable to the TMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BOCT and TMAR, 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

	BOCT	TMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.57	3.24	-0.67
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.77	2.33	-1.56

Drawdowns

BOCT vs. TMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BOCT drawdown since its inception was -24.54%, which is greater than TMAR's maximum drawdown of -9.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BOCT and TMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BOCT	TMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.54%	-9.93%	-14.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.09%	-3.64%	-2.45%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.61%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.29%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.60%	-0.66%	-1.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.26%	0.75%	+0.51%

Volatility

BOCT vs. TMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF October (BOCT) is 1.37%, while FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR) has a volatility of 4.45%. This indicates that BOCT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BOCT	TMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.37%	4.45%	-3.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.12%	8.13%	-2.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.18%	9.45%	-1.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.09%	11.41%	-0.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.83%	11.41%	+2.42%

BOCT vs. TMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BOCT has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than TMAR's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

BOCT vs. TMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BOCT nor TMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BOCT Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF October	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.20%
TMAR FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BOCT and TMAR in my portfolio?

BOCT and TMAR have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BOCT or TMAR?

TMAR has higher volatility (4.45%) compared to BOCT (1.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BOCT dropped -24.54% vs TMAR's -9.93%.

Which ETF is better, BOCT or TMAR?

On 1-year performance, TMAR leads with 30.47% vs 20.96% for BOCT. On fees, BOCT is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, BOCT has been the lower-risk option at 1.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BOCT or TMAR?

Over the 1-year period, TMAR has performed better with a 30.47% return vs 20.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BOCT or TMAR?

BOCT is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for TMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BOCT or TMAR?

BOCT and TMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BOCT and TMAR?

BOCT tracks S&P 500 Price Return Index, while TMAR tracks iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) Price Return. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for BOCT and 0.95% for TMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.24 vs 2.57), 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.