NMAR vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

NMAR (Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - NMAR is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Brent Crude Oil. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NMAR returned 19.84% vs 89.50% for BNO. At a correlation of -0.11, they often move in opposite directions. NMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for BNO.

Performance

NMAR vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) and United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NMAR achieves a 9.27% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 86.76% return.

NMAR

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 2.43%
• YTD: 9.27%
• 6M: 10.30%
• 1Y: 19.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BNO

• 1D: 0.76%
• 1M: -7.65%
• YTD: 86.76%
• 6M: 83.45%
• 1Y: 89.50%
• 3Y*: 27.10%
• 5Y*: 23.77%
• 10Y*: 13.38%

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

NMAR vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NMAR Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March	9.27%	13.63%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	86.76%	-3.84%

Correlation

The correlation between NMAR and BNO is -0.27, 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	-0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 4, 2025	-0.11

The correlation between NMAR and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.27 (1 year) to -0.11 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

NMAR vs. BNO — 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: 90
NMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
NMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 94
NMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
NMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 95

BNO

BNO Risk / Return Rank: 65
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 60
BNO Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
BNO Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) and United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO). 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	BNO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.22	2.17	+1.05
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.84	2.68	+2.16
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.71	1.37	+0.34
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.70	5.39	-0.70
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	30.70	10.23	+20.47
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. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.22, which is higher than the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NMAR and BNO, 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	BNO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.22	2.17	+1.05
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.68	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.37	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.70	0.14	+1.57

Drawdowns

NMAR vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.99%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NMAR and BNO.

Drawdown Indicators

	NMAR	BNO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.99%	-87.06%	+77.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.37%	-17.87%	+13.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.75%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.70%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.18%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.09%	-12.04%	+11.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.78%	-40.18%	+39.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.67%	9.43%	-8.76%

Volatility

NMAR vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) is 0.93%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 15.03%. This indicates that NMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BNO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NMAR	BNO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.93%	15.03%	-14.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.98%	36.08%	-31.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.20%	41.56%	-35.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.16%	35.37%	-24.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.16%	36.68%	-25.52%

NMAR vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

NMAR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

NMAR vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

Neither NMAR nor BNO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NMAR and BNO in my portfolio?

NMAR and BNO have a correlation of -0.27, 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 BNO?

BNO has higher volatility (15.03%) compared to NMAR (0.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NMAR dropped -9.99% vs BNO's -87.06%.

Which ETF is better, NMAR or BNO?

On 1-year performance, BNO leads with 89.50% vs 19.84% for NMAR. On fees, NMAR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, NMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NMAR or BNO?

Over the 1-year period, BNO has performed better with a 89.50% return vs 19.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NMAR or BNO?

NMAR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BNO.

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

NMAR and BNO have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between NMAR and BNO?

NMAR is categorized as Defined Outcome, while BNO is Oil & Gas. NMAR tracks Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while BNO tracks Front Month Brent Crude Oil. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NMAR and 0.90% for BNO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.22 vs 2.17), 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.