XBJL vs. ZMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XBJL (Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - July) 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, XBJL returned 12.17% vs 7.62% for ZMAR. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.79% expense ratio.

Performance

XBJL 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 - July (XBJL) 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, XBJL achieves a 4.17% return, which is significantly higher than ZMAR's 2.66% return.

XBJL

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 1.01%
• YTD: 4.17%
• 6M: 5.05%
• 1Y: 12.17%
• 3Y*: 11.72%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ZMAR

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 0.76%
• YTD: 2.66%
• 6M: 3.27%
• 1Y: 7.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XBJL vs. ZMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
XBJL Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - July	4.17%	11.49%
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March	2.66%	5.95%

Correlation

The correlation between XBJL and ZMAR is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 4, 2025	0.79

The correlation between XBJL and ZMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

XBJL vs. ZMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

XBJL

XBJL Risk / Return Rank: 82
XBJL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
XBJL Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
XBJL Omega Ratio Rank: 87
XBJL Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
XBJL Martin Ratio Rank: 90

ZMAR

ZMAR Risk / Return Rank: 94
ZMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
ZMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
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.

XBJL 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 - July (XBJL) 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.

	XBJL	ZMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.41	3.61	-1.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.71	5.89	-2.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	1.84	-0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.70	5.32	-1.62
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.85	30.39	-9.54
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XBJL vs. ZMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XBJL Sharpe Ratio is 2.41, which is lower than the ZMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XBJL 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	XBJL	ZMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.41	3.61	-1.20
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.93	2.29	-1.35

Drawdowns

XBJL vs. ZMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XBJL drawdown since its inception was -11.78%, which is greater than ZMAR's maximum drawdown of -2.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBJL and ZMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	XBJL	ZMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.78%	-2.30%	-9.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.30%	-1.44%	-1.86%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.74%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.05%	+0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.63%	-0.23%	-1.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.58%	0.25%	+0.33%

Volatility

XBJL vs. ZMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - July (XBJL) is 0.32%, while Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) has a volatility of 0.37%. This indicates that XBJL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XBJL	ZMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.32%	0.37%	-0.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.72%	1.57%	+2.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.08%	2.12%	+2.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.99%	3.05%	+6.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.99%	3.05%	+6.94%

XBJL vs. ZMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

XBJL vs. ZMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither XBJL nor ZMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XBJL and ZMAR in my portfolio?

XBJL and ZMAR have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XBJL or ZMAR?

ZMAR has higher volatility (0.37%) compared to XBJL (0.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XBJL dropped -11.78% vs ZMAR's -2.30%.

Which ETF is better, XBJL or ZMAR?

On 1-year performance, XBJL leads with 12.17% vs 7.62% for ZMAR. Both ETFs have the same 0.79% expense ratio. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XBJL or ZMAR?

Over the 1-year period, XBJL has performed better with a 12.17% return vs 7.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XBJL or ZMAR?

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

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

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.61 vs 2.41), 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.