DOCT vs. ZMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DOCT (FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - October) and ZMAR (Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March) are both Defined Outcome funds. DOCT is passively managed, while ZMAR is actively managed. Over the past year, DOCT returned 16.45% vs 7.62% for ZMAR. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. DOCT charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for ZMAR.

Performance

DOCT vs. ZMAR - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DOCT achieves a 5.06% return, which is significantly higher than ZMAR's 2.66% return.

DOCT

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 1.95%
• YTD: 5.06%
• 6M: 5.55%
• 1Y: 16.45%
• 3Y*: 10.96%
• 5Y*: 7.74%
• 10Y*: —

ZMAR

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 0.76%
• YTD: 2.66%
• 6M: 3.27%
• 1Y: 7.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

DOCT vs. ZMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
DOCT FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - October	5.06%	12.62%
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March	2.66%	5.95%

Correlation

The correlation between DOCT and ZMAR is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 4, 2025	0.82

The correlation between DOCT and ZMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

DOCT vs. ZMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

DOCT

DOCT Risk / Return Rank: 85
DOCT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
DOCT Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
DOCT Omega Ratio Rank: 88
DOCT Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
DOCT Martin Ratio Rank: 88

ZMAR

ZMAR Risk / Return Rank: 94
ZMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
ZMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
ZMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
ZMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
ZMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

DOCT vs. ZMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - October (DOCT) 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.

	DOCT	ZMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.77	3.61	-0.84
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.18	5.89	-1.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	1.84	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.81	5.32	-1.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.15	30.39	-11.24
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DOCT vs. ZMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DOCT Sharpe Ratio is 2.77, which is comparable to the ZMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DOCT and ZMAR, 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

	DOCT	ZMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.77	3.61	-0.84
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.06	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.53	2.29	-1.76

Drawdowns

DOCT vs. ZMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DOCT drawdown since its inception was -9.92%, which is greater than ZMAR's maximum drawdown of -2.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DOCT and ZMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	DOCT	ZMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.92%	-2.30%	-7.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.34%	-1.44%	-2.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.92%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-9.92%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.20%	-0.05%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.54%	-0.23%	-1.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.86%	0.25%	+0.61%

Volatility

DOCT vs. ZMAR - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - October (DOCT) has a higher volatility of 0.86% compared to Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) at 0.37%. This indicates that DOCT'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

	DOCT	ZMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.86%	0.37%	+0.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.40%	1.57%	+2.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.96%	2.12%	+3.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.33%	3.05%	+4.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	48.58%	3.05%	+45.53%

DOCT vs. ZMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

DOCT has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than ZMAR's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

DOCT vs. ZMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither DOCT nor ZMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DOCT and ZMAR in my portfolio?

DOCT and ZMAR have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DOCT or ZMAR?

DOCT has higher volatility (0.86%) compared to ZMAR (0.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DOCT dropped -9.92% vs ZMAR's -2.30%.

Which ETF is better, DOCT or ZMAR?

On 1-year performance, DOCT leads with 16.45% vs 7.62% for ZMAR. On fees, ZMAR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, ZMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DOCT or ZMAR?

Over the 1-year period, DOCT has performed better with a 16.45% return vs 7.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DOCT or ZMAR?

ZMAR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DOCT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, DOCT or ZMAR?

DOCT and ZMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between DOCT and ZMAR?

They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DOCT and 0.79% for ZMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.61 vs 2.77), 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.