NMAR vs. FFTY
NMAR (Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March) and FFTY (Innovator IBD 50 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NMAR is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while FFTY is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the IBD 50 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NMAR returned 19.61% vs 38.14% for FFTY. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for FFTY.
Performance
NMAR vs. FFTY - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, NMAR achieves a 9.20% return, which is significantly lower than FFTY's 20.11% return.
NMAR
- 1D
- -0.06%
- 1M
- 2.38%
- YTD
- 9.20%
- 6M
- 10.17%
- 1Y
- 19.61%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FFTY
- 1D
- -0.14%
- 1M
- 7.67%
- YTD
- 20.11%
- 6M
- 21.02%
- 1Y
- 38.14%
- 3Y*
- 21.57%
- 5Y*
- -0.60%
- 10Y*
- 7.57%
NMAR vs. FFTY - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
NMAR Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March | 9.20% | 13.63% |
FFTY Innovator IBD 50 ETF | 20.11% | 26.57% |
Correlation
The correlation between NMAR and FFTY is 0.64, 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 | 0.64 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 4, 2025 | 0.66 |
The correlation between NMAR and FFTY has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
NMAR vs. FFTY — Risk / Return Rank
NMAR
FFTY
NMAR vs. FFTY - 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 IBD 50 ETF (FFTY). 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 | FFTY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +2.06 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +3.24 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.70 | 1.20 | +0.49 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.51 | 1.65 | +2.87 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 29.43 | 4.36 | +25.07 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| NMAR | FFTY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.18 | 1.12 | +2.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | -0.02 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.28 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.69 | 0.20 | +1.50 |
Drawdowns
NMAR vs. FFTY - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.99%, smaller than the maximum FFTY drawdown of -59.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NMAR and FFTY.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| NMAR | FFTY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -9.99% | -59.46% | +49.47% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.37% | -23.29% | +18.92% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -29.60% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -59.46% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -59.46% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.15% | -15.34% | +15.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.78% | -22.38% | +21.60% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.67% | 8.77% | -8.10% |
Volatility
NMAR vs. FFTY - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) is 0.94%, while Innovator IBD 50 ETF (FFTY) has a volatility of 9.42%. This indicates that NMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FFTY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| NMAR | FFTY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.94% | 9.42% | -8.48% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.98% | 26.18% | -21.20% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.19% | 34.09% | -27.90% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 11.15% | 29.14% | -17.99% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 11.15% | 27.41% | -16.26% |
NMAR vs. FFTY - Expense Ratio Comparison
NMAR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than FFTY's 0.80% expense ratio.
Dividends
NMAR vs. FFTY - Dividend Comparison
NMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FFTY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.12%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FFTY Innovator IBD 50 ETF | 1.12% | 1.35% | 0.91% | 0.65% | 2.75% | 0.22% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.17% |
NMAR Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
NMAR and FFTY have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FFTY has higher volatility (9.42%) compared to NMAR (0.94%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NMAR dropped -9.99% vs FFTY's -59.46%.
On 1-year performance, FFTY leads with 38.14% vs 19.61% for NMAR. On fees, NMAR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, NMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.94%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, FFTY has performed better with a 38.14% return vs 19.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
NMAR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FFTY.
FFTY has the higher dividend yield at 1.12%, compared with 0.00% for NMAR.
NMAR is categorized as Defined Outcome, while FFTY is Large Cap Growth Equities. NMAR tracks Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while FFTY tracks IBD 50 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NMAR and 0.80% for FFTY.
NMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.18 vs 1.12), 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.
Find the right allocation for NMAR and FFTY
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