EAPR vs. TMAR

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

EAPR (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April) and TMAR (FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March) are both Defined Outcome funds - EAPR tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets while TMAR tracks the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) Price Return. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, EAPR returned 22.51% vs 30.47% for TMAR. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EAPR charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for TMAR.

Performance

EAPR vs. TMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) and FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EAPR achieves a 11.89% return, which is significantly lower than TMAR's 15.28% return.

EAPR

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 2.45%
• YTD: 11.89%
• 6M: 12.71%
• 1Y: 22.51%
• 3Y*: 10.78%
• 5Y*: 5.35%
• 10Y*: —

TMAR

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 3.39%
• YTD: 15.28%
• 6M: 16.87%
• 1Y: 30.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EAPR vs. TMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	11.89%	9.17%
TMAR FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March	15.28%	14.71%

Correlation

The correlation between EAPR and TMAR is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 25, 2025	0.81

The correlation between EAPR and TMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EAPR vs. TMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

EAPR

EAPR Risk / Return Rank: 95
EAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
EAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
EAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
EAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
EAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

TMAR

TMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
TMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
TMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
TMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
TMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
TMAR 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.

EAPR vs. TMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) and FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR). 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.

	EAPR	TMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.13	3.24	-0.11
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	5.38	4.90	+0.48
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.87	1.82	+0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.54	8.56	-1.02
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	43.49	41.51	+1.98
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EAPR vs. TMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EAPR Sharpe Ratio is 3.13, which is comparable to the TMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EAPR and TMAR, 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

	EAPR	TMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.13	3.24	-0.11
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.53	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.55	2.33	-1.78

Drawdowns

EAPR vs. TMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EAPR drawdown since its inception was -17.65%, which is greater than TMAR's maximum drawdown of -9.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EAPR and TMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	EAPR	TMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.65%	-9.93%	-7.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.02%	-3.64%	+0.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.24%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.65%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.07%	-0.66%	-3.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.52%	0.75%	-0.23%

Volatility

EAPR vs. TMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) is 3.75%, while FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR) has a volatility of 4.45%. This indicates that EAPR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EAPR	TMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.75%	4.45%	-0.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.25%	8.13%	-1.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.22%	9.45%	-2.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.09%	11.41%	-1.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.02%	11.41%	-1.39%

EAPR vs. TMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

EAPR has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is lower than TMAR's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

EAPR vs. TMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither EAPR nor TMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EAPR and TMAR in my portfolio?

EAPR and TMAR have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EAPR or TMAR?

TMAR has higher volatility (4.45%) compared to EAPR (3.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EAPR dropped -17.65% vs TMAR's -9.93%.

Which ETF is better, EAPR or TMAR?

On 1-year performance, TMAR leads with 30.47% vs 22.51% for EAPR. On fees, EAPR is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, EAPR has been the lower-risk option at 3.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EAPR or TMAR?

Over the 1-year period, TMAR has performed better with a 30.47% return vs 22.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EAPR or TMAR?

EAPR is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for TMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EAPR or TMAR?

EAPR and TMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between EAPR and TMAR?

EAPR tracks MSCI Emerging Markets, while TMAR tracks iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) Price Return. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for EAPR and 0.95% for TMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.24 vs 3.13), 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.