BUFP vs. ZMAR

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP) and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR).

BUFP and ZMAR are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. BUFP is a passively managed fund by PGIM that tracks the performance of the S&P 500. It was launched on Jun 11, 2024. ZMAR is an actively managed fund by Innovator. It was launched on Mar 3, 2025.

Performance

BUFP vs. ZMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP) and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

BUFP vs. ZMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BUFP PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF	-1.34%	12.38%
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March	0.33%	5.95%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUFP achieves a -1.34% return, which is significantly lower than ZMAR's 0.33% return.

BUFP

• 1D: 1.96%
• 1M: -2.04%
• YTD: -1.34%
• 6M: 1.19%
• 1Y: 13.58%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ZMAR

• 1D: 0.68%
• 1M: -0.70%
• YTD: 0.33%
• 6M: 1.87%
• 1Y: 7.05%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFP vs. ZMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFP has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than ZMAR's 0.79% expense ratio.

ZMAR

Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March

BUFP

PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF

Return for Risk

BUFP vs. ZMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFP

BUFP Risk / Return Rank: 75
BUFP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
BUFP Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
BUFP Omega Ratio Rank: 81
BUFP Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
BUFP Martin Ratio Rank: 85

ZMAR

ZMAR Risk / Return Rank: 96
ZMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
ZMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
ZMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
ZMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
ZMAR 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.

BUFP vs. ZMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP) 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.

	BUFP	ZMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.23	2.28	-1.05
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.86	3.60	-1.75
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.54	-0.23
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.71	3.79	-2.09
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.81	19.05	-9.24
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUFP vs. ZMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFP Sharpe Ratio is 1.23, which is lower than the ZMAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFP 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

	BUFP	ZMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.23	2.28	-1.05
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.02	1.83	-0.80

Correlation

The correlation between BUFP and ZMAR is 0.83, 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

BUFP vs. ZMAR - Dividend Comparison

BUFP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%, while ZMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024
BUFP PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF	0.01%	0.01%	0.02%
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

BUFP vs. ZMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFP drawdown since its inception was -11.98%, which is greater than ZMAR's maximum drawdown of -2.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFP and ZMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFP	ZMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.98%	-2.30%	-9.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.16%	-1.92%	-6.24%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.54%	-0.77%	-1.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.08%	-0.25%	-0.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.42%	0.38%	+1.04%

Volatility

BUFP vs. ZMAR - Volatility Comparison

PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP) has a higher volatility of 3.41% compared to Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) at 1.19%. This indicates that BUFP'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

	BUFP	ZMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.41%	1.19%	+2.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.99%	1.67%	+3.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.11%	3.11%	+8.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.79%	3.21%	+6.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.79%	3.21%	+6.58%