PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
NBFR vs. TMAR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

NBFR vs. TMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed 10 Buffer ETF (NBFR) and FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period


NBFR

1D
-4.05%
1M
0.92%
YTD
6M
1Y
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

TMAR

1D
-3.27%
1M
-4.00%
YTD
10.14%
6M
11.17%
1Y
22.68%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

NBFR vs. TMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between NBFR and TMAR is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2026

0.73

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

NBFR vs. TMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NBFR

TMAR
TMAR Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
TMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
TMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
TMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
TMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 9595
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

NBFR vs. TMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed 10 Buffer ETF (NBFR) and FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR). 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.


Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

NBFR vs. TMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


NBFRTMARDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.27

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.90

1.83

-0.93

Drawdowns

NBFR vs. TMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBFR drawdown since its inception was -5.68%, smaller than the maximum TMAR drawdown of -9.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBFR and TMAR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


NBFRTMARDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-5.68%

-9.93%

+4.25%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.46%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.55%

-4.46%

-0.09%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.33%

-0.68%

-0.65%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.81%

Volatility

NBFR vs. TMAR - Volatility Comparison


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


NBFRTMARDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.23%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.89%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.14%

10.05%

+3.09%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.14%

11.80%

+1.34%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.14%

11.80%

+1.34%

NBFR vs. TMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBFR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than TMAR's 0.95% expense ratio.


Dividends

NBFR vs. TMAR - Dividend Comparison

NBFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.02%, while TMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.


Frequently Asked Questions


NBFR and TMAR have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, NBFR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

NBFR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for TMAR.

NBFR has the higher dividend yield at 0.02%, compared with 0.00% for TMAR.

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NBFR and 0.95% for TMAR.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for NBFR and TMAR

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer