NMAR vs. PQOC

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

NMAR (Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March) and PQOC (PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - October) are both Defined Outcome funds. NMAR is passively managed, while PQOC is actively managed. Over the past year, NMAR returned 15.71% vs 16.69% for PQOC. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PQOC.

Performance

NMAR vs. PQOC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) and PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - October (PQOC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with NMAR having a 8.64% return and PQOC slightly higher at 8.89%.

NMAR

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

PQOC

• 1D: -0.51%
• 1M: 0.61%
• 6M: 7.69%
• YTD: 8.89%
• 1Y: 16.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NMAR vs. PQOC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NMAR Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March	8.64%	11.79%
PQOC PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - October	8.89%	13.86%

Correlation

The correlation between NMAR and PQOC is 0.94, 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	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2025	0.95

The correlation between NMAR and PQOC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NMAR vs. PQOC — 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

PQOC

PQOC Risk / Return Rank: 73
PQOC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
PQOC Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
PQOC Omega Ratio Rank: 77
PQOC Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
PQOC Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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. PQOC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) and PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - October (PQOC). 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	PQOC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.39	1.90	+0.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.50	2.63	+0.87
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.36	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.61	2.51	+1.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.63	11.26	+10.37

NMAR vs. PQOC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NMAR Sharpe Ratio is 2.39, which is comparable to the PQOC Sharpe Ratio of 1.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NMAR and PQOC, 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. PQOC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NMAR drawdown since its inception was -10.61%, smaller than the maximum PQOC drawdown of -13.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NMAR and PQOC.

Drawdown Indicators

	NMAR	PQOC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.61%	-13.71%	+3.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.37%	-6.68%	+2.31%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.67%	-0.51%	-0.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.87%	-1.55%	+0.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.73%	1.49%	-0.76%

Volatility

NMAR vs. PQOC - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) and PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - October (PQOC) have volatilities of 2.44% and 2.44%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NMAR	PQOC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.44%	2.44%	0.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.70%	7.02%	-1.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.62%	8.85%	-2.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.09%	12.70%	-1.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.09%	12.70%	-1.61%

NMAR vs. PQOC - Expense Ratio Comparison

NMAR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than PQOC's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

NMAR vs. PQOC - Dividend Comparison

Neither NMAR nor PQOC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NMAR and PQOC in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, NMAR and PQOC move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, NMAR or PQOC?

PQOC has higher volatility (2.44%) compared to NMAR (2.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NMAR dropped -10.61% vs PQOC's -13.71%.

Which ETF is better, NMAR or PQOC?

On 1-year performance, PQOC leads with 16.69% vs 15.71% for NMAR. On fees, PQOC is cheaper at 0.50% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NMAR or PQOC?

Over the 1-year period, PQOC has performed better with a 16.69% return vs 15.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NMAR or PQOC?

PQOC is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for NMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between NMAR and PQOC?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NMAR and 0.50% for PQOC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 1.90), 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.