IMAR vs. USO

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

IMAR (Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March) and USO (United States Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - IMAR is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Innovator, while USO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Light Sweet Crude Oil. IMAR is actively managed, while USO is passively managed. Over the past year, IMAR returned 8.91% vs 97.37% for USO. At a correlation of -0.14, they often move in opposite directions. IMAR charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.86%/yr for USO.

Performance

IMAR vs. USO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March (IMAR) and United States Oil Fund LP (USO). 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 USO's 98.48% return.

IMAR

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

USO

• 1D: 1.31%
• 1M: -3.87%
• YTD: 98.48%
• 6M: 95.54%
• 1Y: 97.37%
• 3Y*: 28.86%
• 5Y*: 23.92%
• 10Y*: 3.80%

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

IMAR vs. USO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IMAR Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March	1.68%	18.88%	-0.77%
USO United States Oil Fund LP	98.48%	-8.46%	0.79%

Correlation

The correlation between IMAR and USO is -0.39, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 4, 2024	-0.14

Over the past year, the inverse relationship between IMAR and USO has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.14 to -0.39, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.

Return for Risk

IMAR vs. USO — 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

USO

USO Risk / Return Rank: 66
USO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
USO Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
USO Omega Ratio Rank: 61
USO Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
USO Martin Ratio Rank: 55

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. USO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March (IMAR) and United States Oil Fund LP (USO). 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	USO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.12	2.22	-1.10
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.64	2.81	-1.18
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.37	-0.14
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.37	5.12	-3.75
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.31	9.66	-4.35
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. USO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMAR Sharpe Ratio is 1.12, which is lower than the USO Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMAR and USO, 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	USO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.12	2.22	-1.10
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.67	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.10	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.91	-0.18	+1.08

Drawdowns

IMAR vs. USO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.05%, smaller than the maximum USO drawdown of -98.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMAR and USO.

Drawdown Indicators

	IMAR	USO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.05%	-98.19%	+89.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.91%	-20.39%	+13.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.05%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-36.23%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-86.75%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.52%	-85.39%	+84.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.89%	-75.30%	+73.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.78%	10.81%	-9.03%

Volatility

IMAR vs. USO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF - March (IMAR) is 3.05%, while United States Oil Fund LP (USO) has a volatility of 15.03%. This indicates that IMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than USO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IMAR	USO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.05%	15.03%	-11.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.89%	38.18%	-31.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.99%	44.26%	-36.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.35%	36.04%	-26.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.35%	39.00%	-29.65%

IMAR vs. USO - Expense Ratio Comparison

IMAR has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than USO's 0.86% expense ratio.

Dividends

IMAR vs. USO - Dividend Comparison

Neither IMAR nor USO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IMAR and USO in my portfolio?

IMAR and USO 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, IMAR or USO?

USO has higher volatility (15.03%) compared to IMAR (3.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMAR dropped -9.05% vs USO's -98.19%.

Which ETF is better, IMAR or USO?

On 1-year performance, USO leads with 97.37% vs 8.91% for IMAR. On fees, IMAR is cheaper at 0.85% 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 USO?

Over the 1-year period, USO has performed better with a 97.37% 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 USO?

IMAR is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for USO.

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

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

What is the main difference between IMAR and USO?

IMAR is categorized as Options Trading, while USO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and USCF. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for IMAR and 0.86% for USO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

USO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 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.