ZMAR vs. BWET

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

ZMAR (Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March) and BWET (Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZMAR is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Innovator, while BWET is a Commodities fund tracking the Breakwave Wet Freight Futures Index. ZMAR is actively managed, while BWET is passively managed. Over the past year, ZMAR returned 7.27% vs 1640.62% for BWET. At a correlation of -0.11, they often move in opposite directions. ZMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 3.50%/yr for BWET.

Performance

ZMAR vs. BWET - 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 Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF (BWET). 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 lower than BWET's 1,030.31% return.

ZMAR

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

BWET

• 1D: 2.73%
• 1M: 25.30%
• YTD: 1,030.31%
• 6M: 892.97%
• 1Y: 1,640.62%
• 3Y*: 128.11%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ZMAR vs. BWET - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March	2.51%	5.30%
BWET Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF	1,030.31%	79.71%

Correlation

The correlation between ZMAR and BWET is -0.11, 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	-0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2025	-0.11

Return for Risk

ZMAR vs. BWET — 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

BWET

BWET Risk / Return Rank: 98
BWET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
BWET Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
BWET Omega Ratio Rank: 97
BWET Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
BWET 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. BWET - 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 Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF (BWET). 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	BWET	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.37	16.89	-13.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.39	6.36	-0.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.77	1.92	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.07	54.19	-49.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	28.24	142.88	-114.64

ZMAR vs. BWET - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.37, which is lower than the BWET Sharpe Ratio of 16.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZMAR and BWET, 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. BWET - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZMAR drawdown since its inception was -2.89%, smaller than the maximum BWET drawdown of -56.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZMAR and BWET.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZMAR	BWET	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.89%	-56.90%	+54.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.44%	-30.64%	+29.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-56.81%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.19%	0.00%	-0.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.32%	-23.78%	+23.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.26%	11.60%	-11.34%

Volatility

ZMAR vs. BWET - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) is 0.68%, while Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF (BWET) has a volatility of 25.51%. This indicates that ZMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BWET based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZMAR	BWET	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.68%	25.51%	-24.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.68%	88.96%	-87.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.17%	98.53%	-96.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.09%	70.43%	-67.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.09%	70.43%	-67.34%

ZMAR vs. BWET - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZMAR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than BWET's 3.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZMAR vs. BWET - Dividend Comparison

Neither ZMAR nor BWET has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZMAR and BWET in my portfolio?

ZMAR and BWET have a correlation of -0.11, 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 BWET?

BWET has higher volatility (25.51%) compared to ZMAR (0.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZMAR dropped -2.89% vs BWET's -56.90%.

Which ETF is better, ZMAR or BWET?

On 1-year performance, BWET leads with 1640.62% vs 7.27% for ZMAR. On fees, ZMAR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, ZMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ZMAR or BWET?

Over the 1-year period, BWET has performed better with a 1640.62% return vs 7.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZMAR or BWET?

ZMAR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 3.50% for BWET.

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

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

What is the main difference between ZMAR and BWET?

ZMAR is categorized as Defined Outcome, while BWET is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Amplify. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for ZMAR and 3.50% for BWET.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BWET currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.89 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.