NMAR vs. FBUF

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

NMAR (Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March) and FBUF (Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. NMAR is passively managed, while FBUF is actively managed. Over the past year, NMAR returned 19.84% vs 20.32% for FBUF. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for FBUF.

Performance

NMAR vs. FBUF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) and Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF). 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 higher than FBUF's 5.45% return.

NMAR

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

FBUF

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 2.95%
• YTD: 5.45%
• 6M: 6.65%
• 1Y: 20.32%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NMAR vs. FBUF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NMAR Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March	9.27%	13.63%
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF	5.45%	14.96%

Correlation

The correlation between NMAR and FBUF is 0.85, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 4, 2025	0.87

The correlation between NMAR and FBUF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NMAR vs. FBUF — 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

FBUF

FBUF Risk / Return Rank: 81
FBUF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
FBUF Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
FBUF Omega Ratio Rank: 87
FBUF Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
FBUF Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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. FBUF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) and Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF). 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	FBUF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.22	2.72	+0.50
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.84	3.67	+1.17
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.71	1.55	+0.16
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.70	3.66	+1.04
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	30.70	16.38	+14.32
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. FBUF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.22, which is comparable to the FBUF Sharpe Ratio of 2.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NMAR and FBUF, 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	FBUF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.22	2.72	+0.50
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.70	1.48	+0.22

Drawdowns

NMAR vs. FBUF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.99%, smaller than the maximum FBUF drawdown of -11.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NMAR and FBUF.

Drawdown Indicators

	NMAR	FBUF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.99%	-11.09%	+1.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.37%	-5.61%	+1.24%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.09%	-0.09%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.78%	-1.38%	+0.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.67%	1.25%	-0.58%

Volatility

NMAR vs. FBUF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) is 0.93%, while Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF) has a volatility of 1.10%. This indicates that NMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FBUF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NMAR	FBUF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.93%	1.10%	-0.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.98%	5.37%	-0.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.20%	7.49%	-1.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.16%	9.55%	+1.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.16%	9.55%	+1.61%

NMAR vs. FBUF - Expense Ratio Comparison

NMAR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than FBUF's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

NMAR vs. FBUF - Dividend Comparison

NMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FBUF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.62%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF	0.62%	0.64%	0.54%
NMAR Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NMAR and FBUF in my portfolio?

NMAR and FBUF have a correlation of 0.85, 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 FBUF?

FBUF has higher volatility (1.10%) compared to NMAR (0.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NMAR dropped -9.99% vs FBUF's -11.09%.

Which ETF is better, NMAR or FBUF?

On 1-year performance, FBUF leads with 20.32% vs 19.84% for NMAR. On fees, FBUF is cheaper at 0.48% 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 FBUF?

Over the 1-year period, FBUF has performed better with a 20.32% 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 FBUF?

FBUF is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for NMAR.

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

FBUF has the higher dividend yield at 0.62%, compared with 0.00% for NMAR.

What is the main difference between NMAR and FBUF?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NMAR and 0.48% for FBUF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.22 vs 2.72), 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.