NAPR vs. ZMAR

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

NAPR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April) and ZMAR (Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March) are both exchange-traded funds - NAPR is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while ZMAR is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Innovator. NAPR is passively managed, while ZMAR is actively managed. Over the past year, NAPR returned 17.72% vs 7.27% for ZMAR. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.79% expense ratio.

Performance

NAPR vs. ZMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April (NAPR) and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NAPR achieves a 10.18% return, which is significantly higher than ZMAR's 2.51% return.

NAPR

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 0.21%
• YTD: 10.18%
• 6M: 10.27%
• 1Y: 17.72%
• 3Y*: 12.61%
• 5Y*: 9.70%
• 10Y*: —

ZMAR

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 0.11%
• YTD: 2.51%
• 6M: 2.64%
• 1Y: 7.27%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NAPR vs. ZMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NAPR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April	10.18%	5.47%
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March	2.51%	5.30%

Correlation

The correlation between NAPR and ZMAR is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2025	0.74

The correlation between NAPR and ZMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NAPR vs. ZMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NAPR

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

ZMAR

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

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.

NAPR vs. ZMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April (NAPR) and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	NAPR	ZMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.19	3.37	+0.82
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	6.93	5.39	+1.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.02	1.77	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.95	5.07	+4.88
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	61.01	28.24	+32.77

NAPR vs. ZMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NAPR Sharpe Ratio is 4.19, which is comparable to the ZMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NAPR and ZMAR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

NAPR vs. ZMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NAPR drawdown since its inception was -16.53%, which is greater than ZMAR's maximum drawdown of -2.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NAPR and ZMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	NAPR	ZMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.53%	-2.89%	-13.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.79%	-1.44%	-0.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.52%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.53%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.42%	-0.19%	-0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.26%	-0.32%	-1.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.29%	0.26%	+0.03%

Volatility

NAPR vs. ZMAR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April (NAPR) has a higher volatility of 2.12% compared to Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) at 0.68%. This indicates that NAPR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NAPR	ZMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.12%	0.68%	+1.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.44%	1.68%	+1.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.26%	2.17%	+2.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.30%	3.09%	+8.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.60%	3.09%	+7.51%

NAPR vs. ZMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both NAPR and ZMAR have an expense ratio of 0.79%.

Dividends

NAPR vs. ZMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither NAPR nor ZMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NAPR and ZMAR in my portfolio?

NAPR and ZMAR have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NAPR or ZMAR?

NAPR has higher volatility (2.12%) compared to ZMAR (0.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NAPR dropped -16.53% vs ZMAR's -2.89%.

Which ETF is better, NAPR or ZMAR?

On 1-year performance, NAPR leads with 17.72% vs 7.27% for ZMAR. Both ETFs have the same 0.79% expense ratio. On volatility, ZMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NAPR or ZMAR?

Over the 1-year period, NAPR has performed better with a 17.72% return vs 7.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NAPR or ZMAR?

NAPR and ZMAR have the same expense ratio: 0.79% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NAPR or ZMAR?

NAPR and ZMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between NAPR and ZMAR?

NAPR is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while ZMAR is Defined Outcome.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NAPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.19 vs 3.37), 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.