NMAY vs. IBIC

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

NMAY (Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May) and IBIC (iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NMAY is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while IBIC is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NMAY returned 13.02% vs 4.60% for IBIC. At a correlation of -0.28, they often move in opposite directions. NMAY charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for IBIC.

Performance

NMAY vs. IBIC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May (NMAY) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). 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 IBIC's 2.37% return.

NMAY

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

IBIC

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: 2.37%
• 6M: 2.47%
• 1Y: 4.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NMAY vs. IBIC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NMAY Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May	4.51%	12.48%
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	2.37%	1.92%

Correlation

The correlation between NMAY and IBIC is -0.26, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2025	-0.28

Return for Risk

NMAY vs. IBIC — 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

IBIC

IBIC Risk / Return Rank: 98
IBIC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
IBIC Omega Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC 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. IBIC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May (NMAY) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). 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	IBIC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.68	5.14	-2.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.78	9.34	-5.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	2.28	-0.70
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.75	17.50	-10.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	34.97	67.61	-32.64
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. IBIC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NMAY Sharpe Ratio is 2.68, which is lower than the IBIC Sharpe Ratio of 5.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NMAY and IBIC, 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	IBIC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.68	5.14	-2.46
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	3.00	3.48	-0.48

Drawdowns

NMAY vs. IBIC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NMAY drawdown since its inception was -1.94%, which is greater than IBIC's maximum drawdown of -0.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NMAY and IBIC.

Drawdown Indicators

	NMAY	IBIC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.94%	-0.90%	-1.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.94%	-0.26%	-1.68%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.94%	-0.13%	-1.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.20%	-0.10%	-0.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.37%	0.07%	+0.30%

Volatility

NMAY vs. IBIC - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May (NMAY) has a higher volatility of 2.34% compared to iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) at 0.31%. This indicates that NMAY's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBIC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NMAY	IBIC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.34%	0.31%	+2.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.81%	0.67%	+3.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.89%	0.90%	+3.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.33%	1.57%	+3.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.33%	1.57%	+3.76%

NMAY vs. IBIC - Expense Ratio Comparison

NMAY has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than IBIC's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

NMAY vs. IBIC - Dividend Comparison

NMAY has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IBIC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.59%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	3.59%	4.43%	4.65%	0.83%
NMAY Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NMAY and IBIC in my portfolio?

NMAY and IBIC have a correlation of -0.26, 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 IBIC?

NMAY has higher volatility (2.34%) compared to IBIC (0.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NMAY dropped -1.94% vs IBIC's -0.90%.

Which ETF is better, NMAY or IBIC?

On 1-year performance, NMAY leads with 13.02% vs 4.60% for IBIC. On fees, IBIC is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIC has been the lower-risk option at 0.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NMAY or IBIC?

Over the 1-year period, NMAY has performed better with a 13.02% return vs 4.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NMAY or IBIC?

IBIC is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for NMAY.

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

IBIC has the higher dividend yield at 3.59%, compared with 0.00% for NMAY.

What is the main difference between NMAY and IBIC?

NMAY is categorized as Defined Outcome, while IBIC is Inflation-Protected Bonds. NMAY tracks Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while IBIC tracks ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NMAY and 0.10% for IBIC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBIC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.14 vs 2.68), 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.