IOCT vs. XMAR

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

IOCT (Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF- October) and XMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, IOCT returned 12.51%/yr vs 11.18%/yr for XMAR. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.85% expense ratio.

Performance

IOCT vs. XMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF- October (IOCT) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IOCT achieves a 5.42% return, which is significantly lower than XMAR's 6.66% return.

IOCT

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: 1.47%
• YTD: 5.42%
• 6M: 7.04%
• 1Y: 13.00%
• 3Y*: 12.51%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XMAR

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 1.13%
• YTD: 6.66%
• 6M: 7.46%
• 1Y: 13.17%
• 3Y*: 11.18%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IOCT vs. XMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
IOCT Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF- October	5.42%	18.96%	4.88%	13.08%
XMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March	6.66%	10.30%	10.10%	10.30%

Correlation

The correlation between IOCT and XMAR is 0.62, 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	0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2023	0.58

The correlation between IOCT and XMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

IOCT vs. XMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IOCT	XMAR
Financial Services	24.7%	11.9%
Industrials	19.8%	8.1%
Healthcare	10.6%	8.4%
Technology	10.3%	36.2%
Consumer Cyclical	7.7%	10.1%
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	4.9%
Basic Materials	5.9%	1.8%
Communication Services	4.5%	10.9%
Energy	4.0%	3.5%
Utilities	4.0%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%

Return for Risk

IOCT vs. XMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

IOCT

IOCT Risk / Return Rank: 44
IOCT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
IOCT Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
IOCT Omega Ratio Rank: 40
IOCT Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
IOCT Martin Ratio Rank: 52

XMAR

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

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.

IOCT vs. XMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF- October (IOCT) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR). 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.

	IOCT	XMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.48	4.40	-2.92
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.17	7.61	-5.44
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	2.22	-0.96
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.38	9.04	-6.66
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.02	69.02	-59.99
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IOCT vs. XMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IOCT Sharpe Ratio is 1.48, which is lower than the XMAR Sharpe Ratio of 4.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IOCT and XMAR, 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

	IOCT	XMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.48	4.40	-2.92
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.91	2.13	-1.22

Drawdowns

IOCT vs. XMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IOCT drawdown since its inception was -16.94%, which is greater than XMAR's maximum drawdown of -7.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IOCT and XMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	IOCT	XMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.94%	-7.29%	-9.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.84%	-1.48%	-4.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.54%	-7.29%	-0.25%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.15%	+0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.67%	-0.30%	-2.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.54%	0.19%	+1.35%

Volatility

IOCT vs. XMAR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator International Developed Power Buffer ETF- October (IOCT) has a higher volatility of 2.31% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) at 0.66%. This indicates that IOCT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IOCT	XMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.31%	0.66%	+1.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.44%	2.40%	+4.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.85%	3.01%	+5.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.36%	5.56%	+3.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.36%	5.56%	+3.80%

IOCT vs. XMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both IOCT and XMAR have an expense ratio of 0.85%.

Dividends

IOCT vs. XMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither IOCT nor XMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IOCT and XMAR in my portfolio?

IOCT and XMAR have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IOCT or XMAR?

IOCT has higher volatility (2.31%) compared to XMAR (0.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IOCT dropped -16.94% vs XMAR's -7.29%.

Which ETF is better, IOCT or XMAR?

On 3-year performance, IOCT leads with 12.51% vs 11.18% for XMAR. Both ETFs have the same 0.85% expense ratio. On volatility, XMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IOCT or XMAR?

Over the 3-year period, IOCT has performed better with a 12.51% return vs 11.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IOCT or XMAR?

IOCT and XMAR have the same expense ratio: 0.85% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IOCT or XMAR?

IOCT and XMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between IOCT and XMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and FT Vest.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.40 vs 1.48), 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.