UMAY vs. FMAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

UMAY (Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - May) and FMAR (FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March) are both Defined Outcome funds. UMAY is passively managed, while FMAR is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, UMAY returned 6.16%/yr vs 10.43%/yr for FMAR. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. UMAY charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for FMAR.

Performance

UMAY vs. FMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - May (UMAY) 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, UMAY achieves a 3.07% return, which is significantly lower than FMAR's 9.35% return.

UMAY

• 1D: -0.51%
• 1M: -0.53%
• YTD: 3.07%
• 6M: 3.14%
• 1Y: 8.99%
• 3Y*: 10.88%
• 5Y*: 6.16%
• 10Y*: —

FMAR

• 1D: -0.47%
• 1M: -0.11%
• YTD: 9.35%
• 6M: 9.37%
• 1Y: 17.54%
• 3Y*: 13.85%
• 5Y*: 10.43%
• 10Y*: —

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

UMAY vs. FMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
UMAY Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - May	3.07%	8.79%	14.32%	12.53%	-9.21%	4.39%
FMAR FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March	9.35%	9.69%	14.61%	20.39%	-5.51%	11.71%

Correlation

The correlation between UMAY and FMAR is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2021	0.90

The correlation between UMAY and FMAR shifts across timeframes, from 0.79 (1 year) to 0.91 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

UMAY vs. FMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UMAY	FMAR
Technology	35.7%	39.0%
Financial Services	11.6%	11.1%
Communication Services	11.3%	10.6%
Consumer Cyclical	10.2%	9.9%
Healthcare	8.5%	8.3%
Industrials	8.3%	7.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.5%
Energy	3.5%	3.1%
Utilities	2.4%	2.1%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.8%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.7%

Return for Risk

UMAY vs. FMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

UMAY

UMAY Risk / Return Rank: 88
UMAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
UMAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
UMAY Omega Ratio Rank: 89
UMAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
UMAY Martin Ratio Rank: 95

FMAR

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

UMAY vs. FMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - May (UMAY) 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.

	UMAY	FMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.34	3.43	-1.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.43	5.44	-2.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.84	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.34	7.46	-2.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	26.83	46.64	-19.81

UMAY vs. FMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UMAY Sharpe Ratio is 2.34, which is lower than the FMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UMAY 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

UMAY vs. FMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMAY drawdown since its inception was -12.12%, smaller than the maximum FMAR drawdown of -14.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMAY and FMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	UMAY	FMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.12%	-14.36%	+2.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.69%	-2.36%	+0.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.49%	-12.37%	+1.88%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-12.12%	-14.36%	+2.24%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.09%	-0.81%	-0.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.13%	-2.12%	-0.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.34%	0.38%	-0.04%

Volatility

UMAY vs. FMAR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - May (UMAY) has a higher volatility of 2.00% compared to FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (FMAR) at 1.76%. This indicates that UMAY'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

	UMAY	FMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.00%	1.76%	+0.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.04%	4.27%	-1.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.90%	5.16%	-1.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.50%	10.47%	-1.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.94%	10.32%	-2.38%

UMAY vs. FMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

UMAY vs. FMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither UMAY nor FMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UMAY and FMAR in my portfolio?

UMAY and FMAR have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UMAY or FMAR?

UMAY has higher volatility (2.00%) compared to FMAR (1.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMAY dropped -12.12% vs FMAR's -14.36%.

Which ETF is better, UMAY or FMAR?

On 5-year performance, FMAR leads with 10.43% vs 6.16% for UMAY. On fees, UMAY is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, FMAR has been the lower-risk option at 1.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UMAY or FMAR?

Over the 5-year period, FMAR has performed better with a 10.43% return vs 6.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UMAY or FMAR?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between UMAY and FMAR?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.43 vs 2.34), 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.