BUFH vs. KMAR

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

BUFH (FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF) and KMAR (Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March) are both Defined Outcome funds. BUFH is actively managed, while KMAR is passively managed. Over the past year, BUFH returned 6.34% vs 24.41% for KMAR. Their 0.63 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. BUFH charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for KMAR.

Performance

BUFH vs. KMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH) and Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March (KMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUFH achieves a 3.19% return, which is significantly lower than KMAR's 12.74% return.

BUFH

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 0.56%
• 6M: 2.79%
• YTD: 3.19%
• 1Y: 6.34%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.41%

KMAR

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: 0.78%
• 6M: 9.45%
• YTD: 12.74%
• 1Y: 24.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 17.47%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF	$330.62K	$242.47K	$193.16K
KMAR Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March	$120.12K	$77.14K	$163.43K

BUFH vs. KMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF	3.19%	3.81%
KMAR Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March	12.74%	10.72%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFH and KMAR is 0.65, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2025	0.63

The correlation between BUFH and KMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BUFH vs. KMAR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BUFH

BUFH Risk / Return Rank: 94
BUFH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
BUFH Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
BUFH Omega Ratio Rank: 95
BUFH Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
BUFH Martin Ratio Rank: 94

KMAR

KMAR Risk / Return Rank: 94
KMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
KMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
KMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 93
KMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
KMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 95

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BUFH vs. KMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH) and Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March (KMAR). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BUFH	KMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.66	2.68	-0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.15	3.94	+0.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.52	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.16	5.01	-0.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.44	21.18	-1.74

BUFH vs. KMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFH Sharpe Ratio is 2.66, which is comparable to the KMAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFH and KMAR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BUFH vs. KMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFH drawdown since its inception was -1.53%, smaller than the maximum KMAR drawdown of -11.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFH and KMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFH	KMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.53%	-11.32%	+9.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.53%	-4.89%	+3.36%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.17%	-1.26%	+1.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.33%	1.16%	-0.83%

Volatility

BUFH vs. KMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH) is 0.54%, while Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March (KMAR) has a volatility of 1.82%. This indicates that BUFH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than KMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFH	KMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.54%	1.82%	-1.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.88%	6.80%	-4.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.40%	9.17%	-6.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.32%	11.78%	-9.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.32%	11.78%	-9.46%

BUFH vs. KMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFH has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than KMAR's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFH vs. KMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFH nor KMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFH and KMAR in my portfolio?

BUFH and KMAR have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFH or KMAR?

KMAR has higher volatility (1.82%) compared to BUFH (0.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFH dropped -1.53% vs KMAR's -11.32%.

Which ETF is better, BUFH or KMAR?

On 1-year performance, KMAR leads with 24.41% vs 6.34% for BUFH. On fees, KMAR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, BUFH has been the lower-risk option at 0.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFH or KMAR?

Over the 1-year period, KMAR has performed better with a 24.41% return vs 6.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFH or KMAR?

KMAR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFH.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BUFH or KMAR?

BUFH and KMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BUFH and KMAR?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BUFH and 0.79% for KMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.68 vs 2.66), 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.