XBOC vs. FMAR
XBOC (Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - October) and FMAR (FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, XBOC returned 11.67%/yr vs 14.55%/yr for FMAR. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XBOC charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for FMAR.
Performance
XBOC vs. FMAR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XBOC achieves a 5.40% return, which is significantly lower than FMAR's 10.02% return.
XBOC
- 1D
- -0.10%
- 1M
- 1.89%
- YTD
- 5.40%
- 6M
- 6.20%
- 1Y
- 13.69%
- 3Y*
- 11.67%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FMAR
- 1D
- -0.21%
- 1M
- 1.97%
- YTD
- 10.02%
- 6M
- 11.01%
- 1Y
- 19.13%
- 3Y*
- 14.55%
- 5Y*
- 10.77%
- 10Y*
- —
XBOC vs. FMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XBOC Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - October | 5.40% | 11.15% | 8.36% | 20.06% | -7.58% | 3.76% |
FMAR FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March | 10.02% | 9.69% | 14.61% | 20.39% | -5.51% | 3.80% |
Correlation
The correlation between XBOC and FMAR is 0.86, 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 | 0.86 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.79 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 4, 2021 | 0.88 |
The correlation between XBOC and FMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.
XBOC vs. FMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XBOC
FMAR
Technology
Financial Services
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Industrials
Consumer Defensive
Energy
Utilities
Real Estate
Basic Materials
Technology
XBOC
FMAR
Financial Services
XBOC
FMAR
Communication Services
XBOC
FMAR
Consumer Cyclical
XBOC
FMAR
Healthcare
XBOC
FMAR
Industrials
XBOC
FMAR
Consumer Defensive
XBOC
FMAR
Energy
XBOC
FMAR
Utilities
XBOC
FMAR
Real Estate
XBOC
FMAR
Basic Materials
XBOC
FMAR
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
XBOC vs. FMAR — Risk / Return Rank
XBOC
FMAR
XBOC vs. FMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - October (XBOC) 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.
| XBOC | FMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.15 | 3.79 | -1.64 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.12 | 6.08 | -2.97 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.46 | 1.94 | -0.49 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.75 | 8.14 | -5.39 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 14.85 | 56.00 | -41.15 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| XBOC | FMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.15 | 3.79 | -1.64 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 1.04 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.86 | 1.10 | -0.25 |
Drawdowns
XBOC vs. FMAR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XBOC drawdown since its inception was -13.35%, smaller than the maximum FMAR drawdown of -14.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBOC and FMAR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XBOC | FMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -13.35% | -14.36% | +1.01% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.99% | -2.36% | -2.63% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -12.53% | -12.37% | -0.16% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -14.36% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.11% | -0.21% | +0.10% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.08% | -2.14% | +0.06% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.92% | 0.34% | +0.58% |
Volatility
XBOC vs. FMAR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - October (XBOC) is 0.78%, while FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (FMAR) has a volatility of 0.98%. This indicates that XBOC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XBOC | FMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.78% | 0.98% | -0.20% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.19% | 3.95% | +1.24% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.41% | 5.08% | +1.33% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.90% | 10.45% | -0.55% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.90% | 10.35% | -0.45% |
XBOC vs. FMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison
XBOC has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than FMAR's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
XBOC vs. FMAR - Dividend Comparison
Neither XBOC nor FMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
XBOC and FMAR have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FMAR has higher volatility (0.98%) compared to XBOC (0.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XBOC dropped -13.35% vs FMAR's -14.36%.
On 3-year performance, FMAR leads with 14.55% vs 11.67% for XBOC. On fees, XBOC is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, XBOC has been the lower-risk option at 0.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, FMAR has performed better with a 14.55% return vs 11.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XBOC is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for FMAR.
XBOC and FMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: Innovator and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for XBOC and 0.85% for FMAR.
FMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.79 vs 2.15), 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.
Find the right allocation for XBOC and FMAR
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer