NMAY vs. FMAR

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

NMAY (Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May) and FMAR (FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March) are both Defined Outcome funds. NMAY is passively managed, while FMAR is actively managed. Over the past year, NMAY returned 14.06% vs 18.79% for FMAR. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NMAY charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for FMAR.

Performance

NMAY vs. FMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May (NMAY) and FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (FMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NMAY achieves a 5.89% return, which is significantly lower than FMAR's 9.87% return.

NMAY

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 5.89%
• 6M: 6.02%
• 1Y: 14.06%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FMAR

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 9.87%
• 6M: 10.00%
• 1Y: 18.79%
• 3Y*: 14.03%
• 5Y*: 10.59%
• 10Y*: —

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

NMAY vs. FMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NMAY Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May	5.89%	12.39%
FMAR FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March	9.87%	13.17%

Correlation

The correlation between NMAY and FMAR is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 1, 2025	0.82

The correlation between NMAY and FMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NMAY vs. FMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NMAY

NMAY Risk / Return Rank: 90
NMAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
NMAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
NMAY Omega Ratio Rank: 92
NMAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
NMAY Martin Ratio Rank: 95

FMAR

FMAR Risk / Return Rank: 96
FMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
FMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
FMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
FMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
FMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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. FMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May (NMAY) and FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (FMAR). 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.

	NMAY	FMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.65	3.68	-1.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.87	5.87	-2.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.91	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.11	8.00	-2.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	30.11	50.46	-20.35

NMAY vs. FMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NMAY Sharpe Ratio is 2.65, which is comparable to the FMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NMAY and FMAR, 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

NMAY vs. FMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NMAY drawdown since its inception was -2.76%, smaller than the maximum FMAR drawdown of -14.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NMAY and FMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	NMAY	FMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.76%	-14.36%	+11.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.76%	-2.36%	-0.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.37%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-14.36%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.64%	-0.34%	-0.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.24%	-2.12%	+1.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.47%	0.37%	+0.10%

Volatility

NMAY vs. FMAR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May (NMAY) has a higher volatility of 3.14% compared to FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (FMAR) at 1.70%. This indicates that NMAY's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NMAY	FMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.14%	1.70%	+1.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.45%	4.24%	+0.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.33%	5.14%	+0.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.69%	10.46%	-4.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.69%	10.32%	-4.63%

NMAY vs. FMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

NMAY has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than FMAR's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

NMAY vs. FMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither NMAY nor FMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NMAY and FMAR in my portfolio?

NMAY and FMAR have a correlation of 0.80, 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 FMAR?

NMAY has higher volatility (3.14%) compared to FMAR (1.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NMAY dropped -2.76% vs FMAR's -14.36%.

Which ETF is better, NMAY or FMAR?

On 1-year performance, FMAR leads with 18.79% vs 14.06% for NMAY. On fees, NMAY is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, FMAR has been the lower-risk option at 1.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NMAY or FMAR?

Over the 1-year period, FMAR has performed better with a 18.79% return vs 14.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NMAY or FMAR?

NMAY is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for FMAR.

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

NMAY and FMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between NMAY and FMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NMAY and 0.85% for FMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.68 vs 2.65), 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.