NMAR vs. EAPR

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

NMAR (Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March) and EAPR (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds from Innovator - NMAR tracks the Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 while EAPR tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NMAR returned 15.71% vs 14.61% for EAPR. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EAPR.

Performance

NMAR vs. EAPR - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NMAR achieves a 8.64% return, which is significantly higher than EAPR's 8.12% return.

NMAR

• 1D: -0.54%
• 1M: 0.22%
• 6M: 8.01%
• YTD: 8.64%
• 1Y: 15.71%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EAPR

• 1D: -1.78%
• 1M: -1.67%
• 6M: 7.37%
• YTD: 8.12%
• 1Y: 14.61%
• 3Y*: 8.48%
• 5Y*: 4.81%
• 10Y*: —

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

NMAR vs. EAPR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NMAR Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March	8.64%	11.79%
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	8.12%	12.44%

Correlation

The correlation between NMAR and EAPR is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2025	0.63

The correlation between NMAR and EAPR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NMAR vs. EAPR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NMAR

NMAR Risk / Return Rank: 90
NMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
NMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
NMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 92
NMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
NMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 94

EAPR

EAPR Risk / Return Rank: 77
EAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
EAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
EAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 86
EAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
EAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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. EAPR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR). 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.

	NMAR	EAPR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.39	1.62	+0.77
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.50	2.34	+1.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.41	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.61	3.76	-0.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.63	16.13	+5.50

NMAR vs. EAPR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NMAR Sharpe Ratio is 2.39, which is higher than the EAPR Sharpe Ratio of 1.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NMAR and EAPR, 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

NMAR vs. EAPR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NMAR drawdown since its inception was -10.61%, smaller than the maximum EAPR drawdown of -17.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NMAR and EAPR.

Drawdown Indicators

	NMAR	EAPR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.61%	-17.65%	+7.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.37%	-3.90%	-0.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-10.24%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-16.53%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.67%	-3.71%	+3.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.87%	-4.02%	+3.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.73%	0.91%	-0.18%

Volatility

NMAR vs. EAPR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) is 2.44%, while Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) has a volatility of 5.18%. This indicates that NMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EAPR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NMAR	EAPR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.44%	5.18%	-2.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.70%	8.63%	-2.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.62%	9.09%	-2.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.09%	10.38%	+0.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.09%	10.25%	+0.84%

NMAR vs. EAPR - Expense Ratio Comparison

NMAR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than EAPR's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

NMAR vs. EAPR - Dividend Comparison

Neither NMAR nor EAPR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NMAR and EAPR in my portfolio?

NMAR and EAPR have a correlation of 0.63, 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 EAPR?

EAPR has higher volatility (5.18%) compared to NMAR (2.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NMAR dropped -10.61% vs EAPR's -17.65%.

Which ETF is better, NMAR or EAPR?

On 1-year performance, NMAR leads with 15.71% vs 14.61% for EAPR. On fees, NMAR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, NMAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NMAR or EAPR?

Over the 1-year period, NMAR has performed better with a 15.71% return vs 14.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NMAR or EAPR?

NMAR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for EAPR.

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

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

What is the main difference between NMAR and EAPR?

NMAR tracks Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while EAPR tracks MSCI Emerging Markets. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NMAR and 0.89% for EAPR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 1.62), 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.