FEBZ vs. KMAR
FEBZ (TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF) and KMAR (Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March) are both Defined Outcome funds - FEBZ tracks the S&P 500 Price Index while KMAR tracks the iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) Price Return. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FEBZ returned 15.91% vs 23.23% for KMAR. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.79% expense ratio.
Performance
FEBZ vs. KMAR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FEBZ achieves a 5.77% return, which is significantly lower than KMAR's 11.31% return.
FEBZ
- 1D
- -0.19%
- 1M
- -1.04%
- YTD
- 5.77%
- 6M
- 4.59%
- 1Y
- 15.91%
- 3Y*
- 14.52%
- 5Y*
- 10.55%
- 10Y*
- —
KMAR
- 1D
- 0.23%
- 1M
- 1.99%
- YTD
- 11.31%
- 6M
- 10.34%
- 1Y
- 23.23%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FEBZ vs. KMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
FEBZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF | 5.77% | 11.68% |
KMAR Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March | 11.31% | 11.45% |
Correlation
The correlation between FEBZ and KMAR is 0.79, 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 | 0.79 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2025 | 0.83 |
The correlation between FEBZ and KMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.83 - 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
FEBZ vs. KMAR — Risk / Return Rank
FEBZ
KMAR
FEBZ vs. KMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) and Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March (KMAR). 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.
| FEBZ | KMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.83 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.33 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.46 | -0.17 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.24 | 4.77 | -2.53 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.31 | 19.52 | -10.21 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FEBZ vs. KMAR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FEBZ drawdown since its inception was -17.50%, which is greater than KMAR's maximum drawdown of -11.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBZ and KMAR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FEBZ | KMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -17.50% | -11.32% | -6.18% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.14% | -4.89% | -2.25% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -14.68% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.50% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.54% | -0.30% | -2.24% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.30% | -1.34% | -1.96% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.71% | 1.19% | +0.52% |
Volatility
FEBZ vs. KMAR - Volatility Comparison
TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) has a higher volatility of 3.51% compared to Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March (KMAR) at 2.99%. This indicates that FEBZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FEBZ | KMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.51% | 2.99% | +0.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.64% | 6.72% | +0.92% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.75% | 9.44% | +0.31% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 12.54% | 12.15% | +0.39% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 12.37% | 12.15% | +0.22% |
FEBZ vs. KMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both FEBZ and KMAR have an expense ratio of 0.79%.
Dividends
FEBZ vs. KMAR - Dividend Comparison
FEBZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.02%, while KMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
FEBZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF | 3.02% | 3.20% | 3.88% | 6.81% |
KMAR Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FEBZ and KMAR have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FEBZ has higher volatility (3.51%) compared to KMAR (2.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FEBZ dropped -17.50% vs KMAR's -11.32%.
On 1-year performance, KMAR leads with 23.23% vs 15.91% for FEBZ. Both ETFs have the same 0.79% expense ratio. On volatility, KMAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, KMAR has performed better with a 23.23% return vs 15.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FEBZ and KMAR have the same expense ratio: 0.79% per year.
FEBZ has the higher dividend yield at 3.02%, compared with 0.00% for KMAR.
FEBZ tracks S&P 500 Price Index, while KMAR tracks iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) Price Return. They also come from different issuers: TrueShares and Innovator.
KMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.48 vs 1.64), 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 FEBZ and KMAR
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