DDFL vs. ZMAR
DDFL (Innovator Equity Dual Directional 15 Buffer ETF - July) and ZMAR (Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March) are both Defined Outcome funds from Innovator. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, DDFL returned 8.17% vs 6.65% for ZMAR. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.79% expense ratio.
Performance
DDFL vs. ZMAR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, DDFL achieves a 3.71% return, which is significantly higher than ZMAR's 2.99% return.
DDFL
- 1D
- 0.14%
- 1M
- 0.85%
- 6M
- 3.50%
- YTD
- 3.71%
- 1Y
- 8.17%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ZMAR
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.54%
- 6M
- 2.80%
- YTD
- 2.99%
- 1Y
- 6.65%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
DDFL vs. ZMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
DDFL Innovator Equity Dual Directional 15 Buffer ETF - July | 3.71% | 2.85% |
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March | 2.99% | 3.69% |
Correlation
The correlation between DDFL and ZMAR is 0.66, 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 | 0.66 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2025 | 0.66 |
The correlation between DDFL and ZMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
DDFL vs. ZMAR — Risk / Return Rank
DDFL
ZMAR
DDFL vs. ZMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Equity Dual Directional 15 Buffer ETF - July (DDFL) 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.
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.
| DDFL | ZMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.46 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.75 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.55 | 1.69 | -0.13 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.06 | 4.55 | +0.51 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 25.72 | 24.87 | +0.85 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
DDFL vs. ZMAR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum DDFL drawdown since its inception was -1.83%, smaller than the maximum ZMAR drawdown of -2.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DDFL and ZMAR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| DDFL | ZMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -1.83% | -2.89% | +1.06% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.63% | -1.44% | -0.19% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.30% | -0.31% | +0.01% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.32% | 0.26% | +0.06% |
Volatility
DDFL vs. ZMAR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Innovator Equity Dual Directional 15 Buffer ETF - July (DDFL) is 0.58%, while Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) has a volatility of 0.66%. This indicates that DDFL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| DDFL | ZMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.58% | 0.66% | -0.08% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.29% | 1.69% | +0.60% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.18% | 2.14% | +1.04% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.65% | 3.05% | +0.60% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.65% | 3.05% | +0.60% |
DDFL vs. ZMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both DDFL and ZMAR have an expense ratio of 0.79%.
Dividends
DDFL vs. ZMAR - Dividend Comparison
Neither DDFL nor ZMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
DDFL and ZMAR have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ZMAR has higher volatility (0.66%) compared to DDFL (0.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DDFL dropped -1.83% vs ZMAR's -2.89%.
On 1-year performance, DDFL leads with 8.17% vs 6.65% for ZMAR. Both ETFs have the same 0.79% expense ratio. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, DDFL has performed better with a 8.17% return vs 6.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
DDFL and ZMAR have the same expense ratio: 0.79% per year.
DDFL and ZMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
ZMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.06 vs 2.60), 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.
Find the right allocation for DDFL and ZMAR
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer