NMAY vs. FBUF

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

NMAY (Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May) and FBUF (Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. NMAY is passively managed, while FBUF is actively managed. Over the past year, NMAY returned 13.02% vs 17.52% for FBUF. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NMAY charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for FBUF.

Performance

NMAY vs. FBUF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May (NMAY) 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, NMAY achieves a 4.51% return, which is significantly higher than FBUF's 3.46% return.

NMAY

• 1D: -1.76%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 4.51%
• 6M: 5.13%
• 1Y: 13.02%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FBUF

• 1D: -1.97%
• 1M: 0.41%
• YTD: 3.46%
• 6M: 4.08%
• 1Y: 17.52%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NMAY vs. FBUF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NMAY Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May	4.51%	12.48%
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF	3.46%	17.68%

Correlation

The correlation between NMAY and FBUF is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2025	0.82

The correlation between NMAY and FBUF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NMAY vs. FBUF — Risk / Return Rank

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

NMAY

NMAY Risk / Return Rank: 91
NMAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
NMAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
NMAY Omega Ratio Rank: 92
NMAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
NMAY Martin Ratio Rank: 96

FBUF

FBUF Risk / Return Rank: 73
FBUF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
FBUF Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
FBUF Omega Ratio Rank: 80
FBUF Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
FBUF 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.

NMAY vs. FBUF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May (NMAY) 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.

	NMAY	FBUF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.68	2.27	+0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.78	3.00	+0.78
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.45	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.75	3.13	+3.61
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	34.97	13.94	+21.04
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NMAY vs. FBUF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NMAY Sharpe Ratio is 2.68, which is comparable to the FBUF Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NMAY 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

	NMAY	FBUF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.68	2.27	+0.41
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	3.00	1.35	+1.65

Drawdowns

NMAY vs. FBUF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NMAY drawdown since its inception was -1.94%, smaller than the maximum FBUF drawdown of -11.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NMAY and FBUF.

Drawdown Indicators

	NMAY	FBUF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.94%	-11.09%	+9.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.94%	-5.61%	+3.67%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.94%	-1.98%	+0.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.20%	-1.37%	+1.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.37%	1.26%	-0.89%

Volatility

NMAY vs. FBUF - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May (NMAY) and Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF) have volatilities of 2.34% and 2.37%, 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

	NMAY	FBUF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.34%	2.37%	-0.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.81%	5.74%	-1.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.89%	7.76%	-2.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.33%	9.63%	-4.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.33%	9.63%	-4.30%

NMAY vs. FBUF - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

NMAY vs. FBUF - Dividend Comparison

NMAY has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FBUF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.64%.

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NMAY and FBUF in my portfolio?

NMAY and FBUF have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NMAY or FBUF?

FBUF has higher volatility (2.37%) compared to NMAY (2.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NMAY dropped -1.94% vs FBUF's -11.09%.

Which ETF is better, NMAY or FBUF?

On 1-year performance, FBUF leads with 17.52% vs 13.02% for NMAY. On fees, FBUF is cheaper at 0.48% 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, NMAY or FBUF?

Over the 1-year period, FBUF has performed better with a 17.52% return vs 13.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NMAY or FBUF?

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

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

FBUF has the higher dividend yield at 0.64%, compared with 0.00% for NMAY.

What is the main difference between NMAY and FBUF?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NMAY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.68 vs 2.27), 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.