PQOC vs. KMAR

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

PQOC (PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - October) and KMAR (Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March) are both Defined Outcome funds. PQOC is actively managed, while KMAR is passively managed. Over the past year, PQOC returned 16.69% vs 21.15% for KMAR. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PQOC charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for KMAR.

Performance

PQOC vs. KMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - October (PQOC) and Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March (KMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PQOC achieves a 8.89% return, which is significantly lower than KMAR's 11.45% return.

PQOC

• 1D: -0.51%
• 1M: 0.61%
• 6M: 7.69%
• YTD: 8.89%
• 1Y: 16.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

KMAR

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 0.90%
• 6M: 8.88%
• YTD: 11.45%
• 1Y: 21.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PQOC vs. KMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
PQOC PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - October	8.89%	13.86%
KMAR Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March	11.45%	11.45%

Correlation

The correlation between PQOC and KMAR is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2025	0.75

The correlation between PQOC and KMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

PQOC vs. KMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

PQOC

PQOC Risk / Return Rank: 73
PQOC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
PQOC Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
PQOC Omega Ratio Rank: 77
PQOC Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
PQOC Martin Ratio Rank: 76

KMAR

KMAR Risk / Return Rank: 90
KMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
KMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
KMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 88
KMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
KMAR 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.

PQOC vs. KMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - October (PQOC) and Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March (KMAR). 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.

	PQOC	KMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.90	2.29	-0.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.63	3.37	-0.74
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.43	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.51	4.34	-1.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.26	17.82	-6.56

PQOC vs. KMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PQOC Sharpe Ratio is 1.90, which is comparable to the KMAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PQOC and KMAR, 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

PQOC vs. KMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PQOC drawdown since its inception was -13.71%, which is greater than KMAR's maximum drawdown of -11.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PQOC and KMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	PQOC	KMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.71%	-11.32%	-2.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.68%	-4.89%	-1.79%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.51%	-0.68%	+0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.55%	-1.30%	-0.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.49%	1.19%	+0.30%

Volatility

PQOC vs. KMAR - Volatility Comparison

PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - October (PQOC) has a higher volatility of 2.44% compared to Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March (KMAR) at 2.06%. This indicates that PQOC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PQOC	KMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.44%	2.06%	+0.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.02%	6.69%	+0.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.85%	9.29%	-0.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.70%	11.97%	+0.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.70%	11.97%	+0.73%

PQOC vs. KMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

PQOC has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than KMAR's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

PQOC vs. KMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither PQOC nor KMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PQOC and KMAR in my portfolio?

PQOC and KMAR have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PQOC or KMAR?

PQOC has higher volatility (2.44%) compared to KMAR (2.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PQOC dropped -13.71% vs KMAR's -11.32%.

Which ETF is better, PQOC or KMAR?

On 1-year performance, KMAR leads with 21.15% vs 16.69% for PQOC. On fees, PQOC is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, KMAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PQOC or KMAR?

Over the 1-year period, KMAR has performed better with a 21.15% return vs 16.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PQOC or KMAR?

PQOC is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for KMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PQOC or KMAR?

PQOC and KMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between PQOC and KMAR?

They also come from different issuers: PGIM and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for PQOC and 0.79% for KMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 1.90), 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.