PMAR vs. BUFP

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

PMAR (Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - March) and BUFP (PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds - PMAR tracks the Cboe S&P 500 15% Buffer Protect March Series Index while BUFP tracks the S&P 500. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, PMAR returned 15.93% vs 18.00% for BUFP. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for BUFP.

Performance

PMAR vs. BUFP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - March (PMAR) and PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP). 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 PMAR having a 6.36% return and BUFP slightly higher at 6.46%.

PMAR

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 1.94%
• YTD: 6.36%
• 6M: 7.38%
• 1Y: 15.93%
• 3Y*: 13.05%
• 5Y*: 9.61%
• 10Y*: —

BUFP

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 2.04%
• YTD: 6.46%
• 6M: 7.37%
• 1Y: 18.00%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PMAR vs. BUFP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PMAR Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - March	6.36%	11.82%	6.32%
BUFP PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF	6.46%	12.92%	6.36%

Correlation

The correlation between PMAR and BUFP is 0.89, 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	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 14, 2024	0.88

The correlation between PMAR and BUFP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

PMAR vs. BUFP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PMAR	BUFP
Technology	36.2%	36.2%
Financial Services	11.9%	11.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	10.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	8.4%
Industrials	8.1%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.9%
Energy	3.5%	3.5%
Utilities	2.3%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.8%

Return for Risk

PMAR vs. BUFP — Risk / Return Rank

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

PMAR

PMAR Risk / Return Rank: 88
PMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
PMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
PMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 94
PMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
PMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 92

BUFP

BUFP Risk / Return Rank: 88
BUFP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
BUFP Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
BUFP Omega Ratio Rank: 91
BUFP Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
BUFP Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

PMAR vs. BUFP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - March (PMAR) and PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP). 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.

	PMAR	BUFP	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.01	2.89	+0.13
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.52	4.30	+0.23
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.69	1.60	+0.08
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.90	4.14	-0.24
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	23.14	23.20	-0.06
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PMAR vs. BUFP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.01, which is comparable to the BUFP Sharpe Ratio of 2.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PMAR and BUFP, 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

	PMAR	BUFP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.01	2.89	+0.13
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.18	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.92	1.41	-0.50

Drawdowns

PMAR vs. BUFP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PMAR drawdown since its inception was -17.18%, which is greater than BUFP's maximum drawdown of -11.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PMAR and BUFP.

Drawdown Indicators

	PMAR	BUFP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.18%	-11.98%	-5.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.11%	-4.41%	+0.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.32%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-10.84%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.56%	-1.01%	-0.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.69%	0.79%	-0.10%

Volatility

PMAR vs. BUFP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - March (PMAR) is 0.83%, while PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP) has a volatility of 0.95%. This indicates that PMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUFP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PMAR	BUFP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.83%	0.95%	-0.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.14%	4.81%	-0.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.31%	6.27%	-0.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.17%	9.49%	-1.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.73%	9.49%	+1.24%

PMAR vs. BUFP - Expense Ratio Comparison

PMAR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than BUFP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

PMAR vs. BUFP - Dividend Comparison

PMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BUFP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BUFP PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF	0.01%	0.01%	0.02%
PMAR Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PMAR and BUFP in my portfolio?

PMAR and BUFP have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PMAR or BUFP?

BUFP has higher volatility (0.95%) compared to PMAR (0.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PMAR dropped -17.18% vs BUFP's -11.98%.

Which ETF is better, PMAR or BUFP?

On 1-year performance, BUFP leads with 18.00% vs 15.93% for PMAR. On fees, BUFP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PMAR or BUFP?

Over the 1-year period, BUFP has performed better with a 18.00% return vs 15.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PMAR or BUFP?

BUFP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for PMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PMAR or BUFP?

BUFP has the higher dividend yield at 0.01%, compared with 0.00% for PMAR.

What is the main difference between PMAR and BUFP?

PMAR tracks Cboe S&P 500 15% Buffer Protect March Series Index, while BUFP tracks S&P 500. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for PMAR and 0.50% for BUFP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.01 vs 2.89), 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.