XBJA vs. ZMAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

XBJA (Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - January) and ZMAR (Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March) are both Defined Outcome funds from Innovator. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, XBJA returned 12.88% vs 6.95% for ZMAR. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.79% expense ratio.

Performance

XBJA vs. ZMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - January (XBJA) and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XBJA achieves a 4.94% return, which is significantly higher than ZMAR's 2.38% return.

XBJA

• 1D: -0.49%
• 1M: 0.03%
• YTD: 4.94%
• 6M: 5.07%
• 1Y: 12.88%
• 3Y*: 11.26%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ZMAR

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: -0.02%
• YTD: 2.38%
• 6M: 2.42%
• 1Y: 6.95%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XBJA vs. ZMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
XBJA Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - January	4.94%	9.71%
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March	2.38%	5.30%

Correlation

The correlation between XBJA and ZMAR is 0.76, 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	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2025	0.78

The correlation between XBJA and ZMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

XBJA vs. ZMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

XBJA

XBJA Risk / Return Rank: 75
XBJA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
XBJA Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
XBJA Omega Ratio Rank: 88
XBJA Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
XBJA Martin Ratio Rank: 79

ZMAR

ZMAR Risk / Return Rank: 94
ZMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
ZMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
ZMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
ZMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
ZMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

XBJA vs. ZMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - January (XBJA) and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR). 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.

	XBJA	ZMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.19	3.23	-1.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.20	5.14	-1.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.72	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.42	4.85	-2.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.05	26.92	-12.87

XBJA vs. ZMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XBJA Sharpe Ratio is 2.19, which is lower than the ZMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XBJA and ZMAR, 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

XBJA vs. ZMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XBJA drawdown since its inception was -17.42%, which is greater than ZMAR's maximum drawdown of -2.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBJA and ZMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	XBJA	ZMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.42%	-2.89%	-14.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.33%	-1.44%	-3.89%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.57%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.64%	-0.32%	-0.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.11%	-0.32%	-2.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.92%	0.26%	+0.66%

Volatility

XBJA vs. ZMAR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - January (XBJA) has a higher volatility of 1.65% compared to Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) at 0.69%. This indicates that XBJA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XBJA	ZMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.65%	0.69%	+0.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.37%	1.68%	+3.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.92%	2.17%	+3.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.54%	3.09%	+8.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.54%	3.09%	+8.45%

XBJA vs. ZMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both XBJA and ZMAR have an expense ratio of 0.79%.

Dividends

XBJA vs. ZMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither XBJA nor ZMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XBJA and ZMAR in my portfolio?

XBJA and ZMAR have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XBJA or ZMAR?

XBJA has higher volatility (1.65%) compared to ZMAR (0.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XBJA dropped -17.42% vs ZMAR's -2.89%.

Which ETF is better, XBJA or ZMAR?

On 1-year performance, XBJA leads with 12.88% vs 6.95% for ZMAR. Both ETFs have the same 0.79% expense ratio. On volatility, ZMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XBJA or ZMAR?

Over the 1-year period, XBJA has performed better with a 12.88% return vs 6.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XBJA or ZMAR?

XBJA and ZMAR have the same expense ratio: 0.79% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, XBJA or ZMAR?

XBJA and ZMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.23 vs 2.19), 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.