IMAR vs. EOCT

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

IMAR (Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March) and EOCT (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October) are both Options Trading funds from Innovator. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, IMAR returned 8.91% vs 25.66% for EOCT. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IMAR charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EOCT.

Performance

IMAR vs. EOCT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March (IMAR) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT). 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 EOCT's 7.94% return.

IMAR

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

EOCT

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 1.48%
• YTD: 7.94%
• 6M: 9.50%
• 1Y: 25.66%
• 3Y*: 13.48%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IMAR vs. EOCT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IMAR Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March	1.68%	18.88%	-0.77%
EOCT Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October	7.94%	22.03%	9.17%

Correlation

The correlation between IMAR and EOCT is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 4, 2024	0.67

The correlation between IMAR and EOCT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

IMAR vs. EOCT — 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

EOCT

EOCT Risk / Return Rank: 85
EOCT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
EOCT Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
EOCT Omega Ratio Rank: 88
EOCT Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
EOCT Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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. EOCT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March (IMAR) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT). 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	EOCT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.12	2.85	-1.73
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.64	3.97	-2.34
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.55	-0.32
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.37	4.40	-3.03
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.31	17.68	-12.37
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. EOCT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMAR Sharpe Ratio is 1.12, which is lower than the EOCT Sharpe Ratio of 2.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMAR and EOCT, 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	EOCT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.12	2.85	-1.73
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.91	0.61	+0.30

Drawdowns

IMAR vs. EOCT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.05%, smaller than the maximum EOCT drawdown of -20.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMAR and EOCT.

Drawdown Indicators

	IMAR	EOCT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.05%	-20.35%	+11.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.91%	-5.93%	-0.98%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-10.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.52%	0.00%	-0.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.89%	-5.70%	+3.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.78%	1.47%	+0.31%

Volatility

IMAR vs. EOCT - Volatility Comparison

Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March (IMAR) has a higher volatility of 3.05% compared to Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - October (EOCT) at 1.76%. This indicates that IMAR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EOCT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IMAR	EOCT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.05%	1.76%	+1.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.89%	6.68%	+0.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.99%	9.05%	-1.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.35%	11.31%	-1.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.35%	11.31%	-1.96%

IMAR vs. EOCT - Expense Ratio Comparison

IMAR has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than EOCT's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

IMAR vs. EOCT - Dividend Comparison

Neither IMAR nor EOCT has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IMAR and EOCT in my portfolio?

IMAR and EOCT have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IMAR or EOCT?

IMAR has higher volatility (3.05%) compared to EOCT (1.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMAR dropped -9.05% vs EOCT's -20.35%.

Which ETF is better, IMAR or EOCT?

On 1-year performance, EOCT leads with 25.66% vs 8.91% for IMAR. On fees, IMAR is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, EOCT has been the lower-risk option at 1.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IMAR or EOCT?

Over the 1-year period, EOCT has performed better with a 25.66% 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 EOCT?

IMAR is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for EOCT.

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

IMAR and EOCT have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between IMAR and EOCT?

Their fees differ too: 0.85% for IMAR and 0.89% for EOCT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EOCT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.85 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.