XJUN vs. ZMAR

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XJUN (FT Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - June) and ZMAR (Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March) are both Defined Outcome funds. XJUN is passively managed, while ZMAR is actively managed. Over the past year, XJUN returned 10.38% vs 7.54% for ZMAR. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XJUN charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for ZMAR.

Performance

XJUN vs. ZMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - June (XJUN) 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, XJUN achieves a 3.11% return, which is significantly higher than ZMAR's 2.63% return.

XJUN

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.49%
• YTD: 3.11%
• 6M: 3.77%
• 1Y: 10.38%
• 3Y*: 10.19%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ZMAR

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: 0.63%
• YTD: 2.63%
• 6M: 3.22%
• 1Y: 7.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XJUN vs. ZMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
XJUN FT Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - June	3.11%	10.45%
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March	2.63%	5.95%

Correlation

The correlation between XJUN and ZMAR 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 4, 2025	0.77

The correlation between XJUN and ZMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

XJUN vs. ZMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

XJUN

XJUN Risk / Return Rank: 93
XJUN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
XJUN Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
XJUN Omega Ratio Rank: 95
XJUN Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
XJUN Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

XJUN vs. ZMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - June (XJUN) 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.

	XJUN	ZMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.10	3.57	-0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.91	5.83	-0.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.72	1.83	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.29	5.26	+0.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	30.91	30.04	+0.86
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XJUN vs. ZMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XJUN Sharpe Ratio is 3.10, which is comparable to the ZMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XJUN 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

	XJUN	ZMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.10	3.57	-0.46
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.20	2.27	-1.08

Drawdowns

XJUN vs. ZMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XJUN drawdown since its inception was -9.14%, which is greater than ZMAR's maximum drawdown of -2.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XJUN and ZMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	XJUN	ZMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.14%	-2.30%	-6.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.97%	-1.44%	-0.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.14%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.01%	-0.08%	+0.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.89%	-0.22%	-0.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.34%	0.25%	+0.09%

Volatility

XJUN vs. ZMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - June (XJUN) is 0.27%, while Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) has a volatility of 0.37%. This indicates that XJUN 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

	XJUN	ZMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.27%	0.37%	-0.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.46%	1.57%	+0.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.36%	2.12%	+1.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.18%	3.04%	+4.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.18%	3.04%	+4.14%

XJUN vs. ZMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

XJUN has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than ZMAR's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

XJUN vs. ZMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither XJUN nor ZMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XJUN and ZMAR in my portfolio?

XJUN and ZMAR 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, XJUN or ZMAR?

ZMAR has higher volatility (0.37%) compared to XJUN (0.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XJUN dropped -9.14% vs ZMAR's -2.30%.

Which ETF is better, XJUN or ZMAR?

On 1-year performance, XJUN leads with 10.38% vs 7.54% for ZMAR. On fees, ZMAR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, XJUN has been the lower-risk option at 0.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XJUN or ZMAR?

Over the 1-year period, XJUN has performed better with a 10.38% return vs 7.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XJUN or ZMAR?

ZMAR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for XJUN.

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

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

What is the main difference between XJUN and ZMAR?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.57 vs 3.10), 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.