EAPR vs. ZMAY

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

EAPR (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April) and ZMAY (Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr May) are both Defined Outcome funds from Innovator. EAPR is passively managed, while ZMAY is actively managed. Over the past year, EAPR returned 22.51% vs 6.10% for ZMAY. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EAPR charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for ZMAY.

Performance

EAPR vs. ZMAY - 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 May (ZMAY). 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 higher than ZMAY's 2.26% return.

EAPR

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

ZMAY

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 0.72%
• YTD: 2.26%
• 6M: 2.89%
• 1Y: 6.10%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EAPR vs. ZMAY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	11.89%	11.91%
ZMAY Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr May	2.26%	4.67%

Correlation

The correlation between EAPR and ZMAY is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2025	0.37

Return for Risk

EAPR vs. ZMAY — 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

ZMAY

ZMAY Risk / Return Rank: 98
ZMAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
ZMAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
ZMAY Omega Ratio Rank: 98
ZMAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
ZMAY Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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. ZMAY - 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 May (ZMAY). 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	ZMAY	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.13	4.23	-1.10
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	5.38	7.55	-2.17
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.87	1.99	-0.12
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.54	15.74	-8.20
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	43.49	73.27	-29.78
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. ZMAY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EAPR Sharpe Ratio is 3.13, which is comparable to the ZMAY Sharpe Ratio of 4.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EAPR and ZMAY, 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	ZMAY	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.13	4.23	-1.10
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	4.29	-3.74

Drawdowns

EAPR vs. ZMAY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EAPR drawdown since its inception was -17.65%, which is greater than ZMAY's maximum drawdown of -0.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EAPR and ZMAY.

Drawdown Indicators

	EAPR	ZMAY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.65%	-0.39%	-17.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.02%	-0.39%	-2.63%
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%	-0.05%	-4.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.52%	0.08%	+0.44%

Volatility

EAPR vs. ZMAY - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) has a higher volatility of 3.75% compared to Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr May (ZMAY) at 0.55%. This indicates that EAPR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZMAY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EAPR	ZMAY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.75%	0.55%	+3.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.25%	1.06%	+5.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.22%	1.45%	+5.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.09%	1.52%	+8.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.02%	1.52%	+8.50%

EAPR vs. ZMAY - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

EAPR vs. ZMAY - Dividend Comparison

Neither EAPR nor ZMAY has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EAPR and ZMAY in my portfolio?

EAPR and ZMAY have a correlation of 0.39, 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 ZMAY?

EAPR has higher volatility (3.75%) compared to ZMAY (0.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EAPR dropped -17.65% vs ZMAY's -0.39%.

Which ETF is better, EAPR or ZMAY?

On 1-year performance, EAPR leads with 22.51% vs 6.10% for ZMAY. On fees, ZMAY is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, ZMAY has been the lower-risk option at 0.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EAPR or ZMAY?

Over the 1-year period, EAPR has performed better with a 22.51% return vs 6.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EAPR or ZMAY?

ZMAY is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for EAPR.

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

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

What is the main difference between EAPR and ZMAY?

Their fees differ too: 0.89% for EAPR and 0.79% for ZMAY.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZMAY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.23 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.