IMAR vs. EFA

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

IMAR (Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March) and EFA (iShares MSCI EAFE ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IMAR is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Innovator, while EFA is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the MSCI EAFE Index (Net). IMAR is actively managed, while EFA is passively managed. Over the past year, IMAR returned 8.91% vs 21.06% for EFA. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IMAR charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.32%/yr for EFA.

Performance

IMAR vs. EFA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March (IMAR) and iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IMAR achieves a 1.68% return, which is significantly lower than EFA's 8.42% return.

IMAR

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: 1.53%
• YTD: 1.68%
• 6M: 3.48%
• 1Y: 8.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EFA

• 1D: -0.86%
• 1M: 3.40%
• YTD: 8.42%
• 6M: 10.94%
• 1Y: 21.06%
• 3Y*: 16.44%
• 5Y*: 8.29%
• 10Y*: 9.11%

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

IMAR vs. EFA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IMAR Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March	1.68%	18.88%	-0.77%
EFA iShares MSCI EAFE ETF	8.42%	31.55%	-0.03%

Correlation

The correlation between IMAR and EFA is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 4, 2024	0.94

The correlation between IMAR and EFA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

IMAR vs. EFA — Risk / Return Rank

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

IMAR

IMAR Risk / Return Rank: 32
IMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
IMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
IMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 36
IMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
IMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 34

EFA

EFA Risk / Return Rank: 39
EFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
EFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
EFA Omega Ratio Rank: 38
EFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
EFA Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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.

IMAR vs. EFA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March (IMAR) and iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA). 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.

	IMAR	EFA	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.12	1.41	-0.29
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.64	2.04	-0.40
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.26	-0.02
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.37	1.85	-0.48
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.31	6.94	-1.63
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IMAR vs. EFA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMAR Sharpe Ratio is 1.12, which is comparable to the EFA Sharpe Ratio of 1.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMAR and EFA, 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

	IMAR	EFA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.12	1.41	-0.29
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.51	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.53	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.91	0.31	+0.59

Drawdowns

IMAR vs. EFA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.05%, smaller than the maximum EFA drawdown of -61.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMAR and EFA.

Drawdown Indicators

	IMAR	EFA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.05%	-61.04%	+51.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.91%	-11.42%	+4.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.05%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.53%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.19%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.52%	-1.46%	+0.94%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.89%	-11.93%	+10.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.78%	3.04%	-1.26%

Volatility

IMAR vs. EFA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March (IMAR) is 3.05%, while iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA) has a volatility of 4.98%. This indicates that IMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EFA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IMAR	EFA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.05%	4.98%	-1.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.89%	12.51%	-5.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.99%	15.05%	-7.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.35%	16.48%	-7.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.35%	17.26%	-7.91%

IMAR vs. EFA - Expense Ratio Comparison

IMAR has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than EFA's 0.32% expense ratio.

Dividends

IMAR vs. EFA - Dividend Comparison

IMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.12%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EFA iShares MSCI EAFE ETF	3.12%	3.38%	3.24%	2.98%	2.69%	3.33%	2.13%	3.10%	3.39%	2.57%	3.07%	2.76%
IMAR Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IMAR and EFA in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, IMAR and EFA move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, IMAR or EFA?

EFA has higher volatility (4.98%) compared to IMAR (3.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMAR dropped -9.05% vs EFA's -61.04%.

Which ETF is better, IMAR or EFA?

On 1-year performance, EFA leads with 21.06% vs 8.91% for IMAR. On fees, EFA is cheaper at 0.32% per year. On volatility, IMAR has been the lower-risk option at 3.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IMAR or EFA?

Over the 1-year period, EFA has performed better with a 21.06% return vs 8.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IMAR or EFA?

EFA is cheaper with a 0.32% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for IMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IMAR or EFA?

EFA has the higher dividend yield at 3.12%, compared with 0.00% for IMAR.

What is the main difference between IMAR and EFA?

IMAR is categorized as Options Trading, while EFA is Foreign Large Cap Equities. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for IMAR and 0.32% for EFA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.41 vs 1.12), 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.