FMAR vs. EBUF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FMAR (FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March) and EBUF (Innovator Emerging Markets 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FMAR returned 19.13% vs 16.62% for EBUF. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FMAR charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EBUF.

Performance

FMAR vs. EBUF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (FMAR) and Innovator Emerging Markets 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (EBUF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with FMAR having a 10.02% return and EBUF slightly higher at 10.10%.

FMAR

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 1.97%
• YTD: 10.02%
• 6M: 11.01%
• 1Y: 19.13%
• 3Y*: 14.55%
• 5Y*: 10.77%
• 10Y*: —

EBUF

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 1.60%
• YTD: 10.10%
• 6M: 11.54%
• 1Y: 16.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FMAR vs. EBUF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FMAR FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March	10.02%	9.69%	6.45%
EBUF Innovator Emerging Markets 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly	10.10%	11.55%	2.86%

Correlation

The correlation between FMAR and EBUF is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2024	0.62

The correlation between FMAR and EBUF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

FMAR vs. EBUF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FMAR	EBUF
Technology	36.2%	36.9%
Financial Services	11.9%	19.5%
Communication Services	10.9%	6.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	9.5%
Healthcare	8.4%	2.9%
Industrials	8.1%	7.5%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	3.0%
Energy	3.5%	4.1%
Utilities	2.3%	2.1%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.1%
Basic Materials	1.8%	6.5%

Return for Risk

FMAR vs. EBUF — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMAR

FMAR Risk / Return Rank: 96
FMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
FMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
FMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
FMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
FMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

EBUF

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

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.

FMAR vs. EBUF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (FMAR) and Innovator Emerging Markets 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (EBUF). 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.

	FMAR	EBUF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.79	3.01	+0.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	6.08	5.08	+1.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.94	1.75	+0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.14	9.16	-1.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	56.00	37.53	+18.47
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FMAR vs. EBUF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.79, which is comparable to the EBUF Sharpe Ratio of 3.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMAR and EBUF, 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

	FMAR	EBUF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.79	3.01	+0.78
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.04	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.10	1.96	-0.85

Drawdowns

FMAR vs. EBUF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMAR drawdown since its inception was -14.36%, which is greater than EBUF's maximum drawdown of -6.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMAR and EBUF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMAR	EBUF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.36%	-6.49%	-7.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.36%	-1.82%	-0.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.37%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.36%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.21%	0.00%	-0.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.14%	-0.49%	-1.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.34%	0.44%	-0.10%

Volatility

FMAR vs. EBUF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (FMAR) is 0.98%, while Innovator Emerging Markets 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (EBUF) has a volatility of 1.72%. This indicates that FMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EBUF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FMAR	EBUF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.98%	1.72%	-0.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.95%	4.71%	-0.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.08%	5.55%	-0.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.45%	6.65%	+3.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.35%	6.65%	+3.70%

FMAR vs. EBUF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMAR has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than EBUF's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

FMAR vs. EBUF - Dividend Comparison

Neither FMAR nor EBUF has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FMAR and EBUF in my portfolio?

FMAR and EBUF have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FMAR or EBUF?

EBUF has higher volatility (1.72%) compared to FMAR (0.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMAR dropped -14.36% vs EBUF's -6.49%.

Which ETF is better, FMAR or EBUF?

On 1-year performance, FMAR leads with 19.13% vs 16.62% for EBUF. On fees, FMAR is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, FMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMAR or EBUF?

Over the 1-year period, FMAR has performed better with a 19.13% return vs 16.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMAR or EBUF?

FMAR is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for EBUF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FMAR or EBUF?

FMAR and EBUF have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between FMAR and EBUF?

They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for FMAR and 0.89% for EBUF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.79 vs 3.01), 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.