NMAR vs. QB

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

NMAR (Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March) and QB (ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds - NMAR tracks the Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 while QB tracks the Nasdaq-100. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NMAR returned 15.71% vs 18.28% for QB. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for QB.

Performance

NMAR vs. QB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) and ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB). 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 lower than QB's 12.15% return.

NMAR

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

QB

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: 3.02%
• 6M: 10.85%
• YTD: 12.15%
• 1Y: 18.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NMAR vs. QB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NMAR Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March	8.64%	7.80%
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF	12.15%	6.10%

Correlation

The correlation between NMAR and QB is 0.76, 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	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025	0.76

The correlation between NMAR and QB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NMAR vs. QB — 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

QB

QB Risk / Return Rank: 94
QB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QB Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
QB Omega Ratio Rank: 95
QB Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
QB Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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. QB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) and ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB). 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	QB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.39	2.62	-0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.50	3.81	-0.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.62	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.61	5.28	-1.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.63	25.48	-3.85

NMAR vs. QB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NMAR Sharpe Ratio is 2.39, which is comparable to the QB Sharpe Ratio of 2.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NMAR and QB, 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. QB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NMAR drawdown since its inception was -10.61%, which is greater than QB's maximum drawdown of -3.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NMAR and QB.

Drawdown Indicators

	NMAR	QB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.61%	-3.47%	-7.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.37%	-3.47%	-0.90%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.67%	-0.31%	-0.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.87%	-0.42%	-0.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.73%	0.72%	+0.01%

Volatility

NMAR vs. QB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March (NMAR) is 2.44%, while ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB) has a volatility of 3.05%. This indicates that NMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NMAR	QB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.44%	3.05%	-0.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.70%	5.83%	-0.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.62%	7.03%	-0.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.09%	6.93%	+4.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.09%	6.93%	+4.16%

NMAR vs. QB - Expense Ratio Comparison

NMAR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than QB's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

NMAR vs. QB - Dividend Comparison

NMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.78%.

Position	TTM	2025
NMAR Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF	0.78%	0.48%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NMAR and QB in my portfolio?

NMAR and QB have a correlation of 0.76, 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 QB?

QB has higher volatility (3.05%) compared to NMAR (2.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NMAR dropped -10.61% vs QB's -3.47%.

Which ETF is better, NMAR or QB?

On 1-year performance, QB leads with 18.28% vs 15.71% for NMAR. On fees, QB is cheaper at 0.58% 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 QB?

Over the 1-year period, QB has performed better with a 18.28% 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 QB?

QB is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for NMAR.

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

QB has the higher dividend yield at 0.78%, compared with 0.00% for NMAR.

What is the main difference between NMAR and QB?

NMAR tracks Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while QB tracks Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NMAR and 0.58% for QB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.62 vs 2.39), 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.