ZAUG vs. PMAP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ZAUG (Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr August) and PMAP (PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ZAUG returned 8.08% vs 7.34% for PMAP. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ZAUG charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PMAP.

Performance

ZAUG vs. PMAP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr August (ZAUG) and PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April (PMAP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZAUG achieves a 2.70% return, which is significantly lower than PMAP's 3.28% return.

ZAUG

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 0.72%
• YTD: 2.70%
• 6M: 3.10%
• 1Y: 8.08%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PMAP

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.59%
• YTD: 3.28%
• 6M: 3.83%
• 1Y: 7.34%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ZAUG vs. PMAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ZAUG Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr August	2.70%	8.01%
PMAP PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April	3.28%	5.37%

Correlation

The correlation between ZAUG and PMAP 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 Apr 2, 2025	0.79

The correlation between ZAUG and PMAP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

ZAUG vs. PMAP — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZAUG

ZAUG Risk / Return Rank: 92
ZAUG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
ZAUG Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
ZAUG Omega Ratio Rank: 95
ZAUG Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
ZAUG Martin Ratio Rank: 94

PMAP

PMAP Risk / Return Rank: 99
PMAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
PMAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
PMAP Omega Ratio Rank: 99
PMAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
PMAP Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

ZAUG vs. PMAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr August (ZAUG) and PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April (PMAP). 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.

	ZAUG	PMAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.31	6.43	-3.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.30	13.39	-8.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.73	2.92	-1.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.71	21.40	-16.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	27.32	133.92	-106.60
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ZAUG vs. PMAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZAUG Sharpe Ratio is 3.31, which is lower than the PMAP Sharpe Ratio of 6.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZAUG and PMAP, 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

	ZAUG	PMAP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.31	6.43	-3.12
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.66	3.23	-1.58

Drawdowns

ZAUG vs. PMAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZAUG drawdown since its inception was -4.83%, which is greater than PMAP's maximum drawdown of -1.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZAUG and PMAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZAUG	PMAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.83%	-1.75%	-3.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.72%	-0.34%	-1.38%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.09%	-0.06%	-0.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.41%	-0.08%	-0.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.30%	0.05%	+0.25%

Volatility

ZAUG vs. PMAP - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr August (ZAUG) has a higher volatility of 0.29% compared to PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April (PMAP) at 0.27%. This indicates that ZAUG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PMAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZAUG	PMAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.29%	0.27%	+0.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.81%	0.81%	+1.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.47%	1.15%	+1.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.58%	2.33%	+2.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.58%	2.33%	+2.25%

ZAUG vs. PMAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZAUG has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than PMAP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZAUG vs. PMAP - Dividend Comparison

Neither ZAUG nor PMAP has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZAUG and PMAP in my portfolio?

ZAUG and PMAP 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, ZAUG or PMAP?

ZAUG has higher volatility (0.29%) compared to PMAP (0.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZAUG dropped -4.83% vs PMAP's -1.75%.

Which ETF is better, ZAUG or PMAP?

On 1-year performance, ZAUG leads with 8.08% vs 7.34% for PMAP. On fees, PMAP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. 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, ZAUG or PMAP?

Over the 1-year period, ZAUG has performed better with a 8.08% return vs 7.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZAUG or PMAP?

PMAP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for ZAUG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ZAUG or PMAP?

ZAUG and PMAP have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between ZAUG and PMAP?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for ZAUG and 0.50% for PMAP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PMAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.43 vs 3.31), 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.