EAPR vs. ZMAR

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR).

EAPR and ZMAR are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. EAPR is a passively managed fund by Innovator that tracks the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets. It was launched on Mar 31, 2021. ZMAR is an actively managed fund by Innovator. It was launched on Mar 3, 2025.

Performance

EAPR vs. ZMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

EAPR vs. ZMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	0.61%	13.35%
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March	0.33%	5.95%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EAPR achieves a 0.61% return, which is significantly higher than ZMAR's 0.33% return.

EAPR

• 1D: -0.97%
• 1M: -0.66%
• YTD: 0.61%
• 6M: 2.49%
• 1Y: 12.59%
• 3Y*: 6.93%
• 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)

EAPR vs. ZMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

EAPR has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than ZMAR's 0.79% expense ratio.

EAPR

Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April

ZMAR

Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March

Return for Risk

EAPR vs. ZMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

EAPR

EAPR Risk / Return Rank: 85
EAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
EAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
EAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 95
EAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
EAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

EAPR vs. ZMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	EAPR	ZMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.64	2.28	-0.64
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.39	3.60	-1.21
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.54	-0.08
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.77	3.79	-2.02
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	13.21	19.05	-5.84
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. ZMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EAPR Sharpe Ratio is 1.64, which is comparable to the ZMAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EAPR 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

	EAPR	ZMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.64	2.28	-0.64
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.36	1.83	-1.47

Correlation

The correlation between EAPR and ZMAR is 0.49, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

EAPR vs. ZMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither EAPR nor ZMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

EAPR vs. ZMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EAPR drawdown since its inception was -17.65%, which is greater than ZMAR's maximum drawdown of -2.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EAPR and ZMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	EAPR	ZMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.65%	-2.30%	-15.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.99%	-1.92%	-5.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.97%	-0.77%	-0.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.18%	-0.25%	-3.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.94%	0.38%	+0.56%

Volatility

EAPR vs. ZMAR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) have volatilities of 1.23% and 1.19%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EAPR	ZMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.23%	1.19%	+0.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.42%	1.67%	+0.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.73%	3.11%	+4.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.82%	3.21%	+6.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.82%	3.21%	+6.61%