ZMAR vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

ZMAR (Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZMAR is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Innovator, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ZMAR returned 7.27% vs 2.91% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.11, they often move in opposite directions. ZMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

ZMAR vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) and Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZMAR achieves a 2.51% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.

ZMAR

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 0.11%
• YTD: 2.51%
• 6M: 2.64%
• 1Y: 7.27%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.16%
• YTD: 1.18%
• 6M: 1.23%
• 1Y: 2.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ZMAR vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March	2.51%	5.30%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	2.58%

Correlation

The correlation between ZMAR and BAMU is -0.20, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2025	-0.11

Return for Risk

ZMAR vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

BAMU

BAMU Risk / Return Rank: 98
BAMU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
BAMU Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
BAMU Omega Ratio Rank: 98
BAMU Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
BAMU 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.

ZMAR vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) and Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU). 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.

	ZMAR	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.37	5.01	-1.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.39	8.84	-3.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.77	2.43	-0.66
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.07	24.72	-19.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	28.24	97.90	-69.66

ZMAR vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.37, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZMAR and BAMU, 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

ZMAR vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZMAR drawdown since its inception was -2.89%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZMAR and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZMAR	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.89%	-0.36%	-2.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.44%	-0.12%	-1.32%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.19%	0.00%	-0.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.32%	-0.02%	-0.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.26%	0.03%	+0.23%

Volatility

ZMAR vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) has a higher volatility of 0.68% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that ZMAR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BAMU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZMAR	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.68%	0.09%	+0.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.68%	0.40%	+1.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.17%	0.58%	+1.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.09%	0.87%	+2.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.09%	0.87%	+2.22%

ZMAR vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZMAR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZMAR vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

ZMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BAMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.05%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZMAR and BAMU in my portfolio?

ZMAR and BAMU have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ZMAR or BAMU?

ZMAR has higher volatility (0.68%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZMAR dropped -2.89% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, ZMAR or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, ZMAR leads with 7.27% vs 2.91% for BAMU. On fees, ZMAR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, BAMU has been the lower-risk option at 0.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ZMAR or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, ZMAR has performed better with a 7.27% return vs 2.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZMAR or BAMU?

ZMAR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 0.00% for ZMAR.

What is the main difference between ZMAR and BAMU?

ZMAR is categorized as Defined Outcome, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for ZMAR and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 3.37), 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.