BUFB vs. ZMAR

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF (BUFB) and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR).

BUFB and ZMAR are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. BUFB is a passively managed fund by Innovator that tracks the performance of the MerQube U.S. Large Cap Equity Buffer Laddered Index - Benchmark TR Gross. It was launched on Feb 8, 2022. ZMAR is an actively managed fund by Innovator. It was launched on Mar 3, 2025.

Performance

BUFB vs. ZMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF (BUFB) and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

BUFB vs. ZMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BUFB Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF	-1.16%	13.25%
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March	0.46%	5.95%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUFB achieves a -1.16% return, which is significantly lower than ZMAR's 0.46% return.

BUFB

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: -2.03%
• YTD: -1.16%
• 6M: 1.15%
• 1Y: 14.88%
• 3Y*: 14.00%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ZMAR

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: -0.65%
• YTD: 0.46%
• 6M: 1.92%
• 1Y: 7.14%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFB vs. ZMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFB has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than ZMAR's 0.79% expense ratio.

BUFB

Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF

ZMAR

Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March

Return for Risk

BUFB vs. ZMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFB

BUFB Risk / Return Rank: 68
BUFB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
BUFB Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
BUFB Omega Ratio Rank: 74
BUFB Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
BUFB Martin Ratio Rank: 78

ZMAR

ZMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
ZMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
ZMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
ZMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
ZMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
ZMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

BUFB vs. ZMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF (BUFB) and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR). 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.

	BUFB	ZMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.16	2.31	-1.14
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.77	3.65	-1.88
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.55	-0.26
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.65	3.74	-2.09
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.15	18.69	-9.54
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUFB vs. ZMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFB Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is lower than the ZMAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFB and ZMAR, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BUFB	ZMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.16	2.31	-1.14
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.76	1.86	-1.10

Correlation

The correlation between BUFB and ZMAR is 0.81, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

BUFB vs. ZMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFB nor ZMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

BUFB vs. ZMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFB drawdown since its inception was -14.88%, which is greater than ZMAR's maximum drawdown of -2.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFB and ZMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFB	ZMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.88%	-2.30%	-12.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.23%	-1.92%	-7.31%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.50%	-0.65%	-1.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.98%	-0.25%	-2.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.67%	0.38%	+1.29%

Volatility

BUFB vs. ZMAR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF (BUFB) has a higher volatility of 3.92% compared to Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) at 1.19%. This indicates that BUFB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFB	ZMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.92%	1.19%	+2.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.94%	1.67%	+4.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.87%	3.11%	+9.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.17%	3.21%	+8.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.17%	3.21%	+8.96%