NMAR vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NMAR (Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NMAR is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. NMAR is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. Over the past year, NMAR returned 19.61% vs 2.93% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.08, they often move in opposite directions. NMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

NMAR vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) and Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NMAR achieves a 9.20% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.06% return.

NMAR

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 2.38%
• YTD: 9.20%
• 6M: 10.17%
• 1Y: 19.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.20%
• YTD: 1.06%
• 6M: 1.25%
• 1Y: 2.93%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NMAR vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NMAR Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March	9.20%	13.63%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.06%	2.54%

Correlation

The correlation between NMAR and BAMU is -0.15, 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	-0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 4, 2025	-0.08

Return for Risk

NMAR vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

NMAR

NMAR Risk / Return Rank: 92
NMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
NMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
NMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 95
NMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
NMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 95

BAMU

BAMU Risk / Return Rank: 98
BAMU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
BAMU Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
BAMU Omega Ratio Rank: 98
BAMU Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
BAMU Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

NMAR vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) and Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU). 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.

	NMAR	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.18	4.98	-1.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.79	8.77	-3.98
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.70	2.41	-0.71
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.51	24.89	-20.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	29.43	97.89	-68.46
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NMAR vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.18, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NMAR and BAMU, 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

	NMAR	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.18	4.98	-1.80
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.69	4.14	-2.45

Drawdowns

NMAR vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.99%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NMAR and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	NMAR	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.99%	-0.36%	-9.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.37%	-0.12%	-4.25%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.15%	0.00%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.78%	-0.02%	-0.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.67%	0.03%	+0.64%

Volatility

NMAR vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) has a higher volatility of 0.94% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.07%. This indicates that NMAR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BAMU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NMAR	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.94%	0.07%	+0.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.98%	0.43%	+4.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.19%	0.59%	+5.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.15%	0.87%	+10.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.15%	0.87%	+10.28%

NMAR vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

NMAR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

NMAR vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

NMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BAMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.06%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.06%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%
NMAR Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NMAR and BAMU in my portfolio?

NMAR and BAMU have a correlation of -0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NMAR or BAMU?

NMAR has higher volatility (0.94%) compared to BAMU (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NMAR dropped -9.99% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, NMAR or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, NMAR leads with 19.61% vs 2.93% for BAMU. On fees, NMAR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, BAMU has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NMAR or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, NMAR has performed better with a 19.61% return vs 2.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NMAR or BAMU?

NMAR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NMAR or BAMU?

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.06%, compared with 0.00% for NMAR.

What is the main difference between NMAR and BAMU?

NMAR is categorized as Defined Outcome, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NMAR and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.98 vs 3.18), 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.