ZMAR vs. IBUF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ZMAR (Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March) and IBUF (Innovator International Developed 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly) are both Defined Outcome funds from Innovator. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ZMAR returned 6.95% vs 12.08% for IBUF. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ZMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for IBUF.

Performance

ZMAR vs. IBUF - 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 Innovator International Developed 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (IBUF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZMAR achieves a 2.38% return, which is significantly lower than IBUF's 5.97% return.

ZMAR

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: -0.02%
• YTD: 2.38%
• 6M: 2.42%
• 1Y: 6.95%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBUF

• 1D: -1.08%
• 1M: 0.87%
• YTD: 5.97%
• 6M: 5.86%
• 1Y: 12.08%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ZMAR vs. IBUF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March	2.38%	5.30%
IBUF Innovator International Developed 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly	5.97%	10.75%

Correlation

The correlation between ZMAR and IBUF is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2025	0.60

The correlation between ZMAR and IBUF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

ZMAR vs. IBUF — 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

IBUF

IBUF Risk / Return Rank: 81
IBUF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
IBUF Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
IBUF Omega Ratio Rank: 77
IBUF Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
IBUF Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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. IBUF - 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 Innovator International Developed 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (IBUF). 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	IBUF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.23	2.00	+1.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.14	3.10	+2.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.72	1.41	+0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.85	5.60	-0.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	26.92	19.15	+7.77

ZMAR vs. IBUF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.23, which is higher than the IBUF Sharpe Ratio of 2.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZMAR and IBUF, 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. IBUF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZMAR drawdown since its inception was -2.89%, smaller than the maximum IBUF drawdown of -5.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZMAR and IBUF.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZMAR	IBUF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.89%	-5.92%	+3.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.44%	-2.17%	+0.73%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.32%	-1.08%	+0.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.32%	-0.47%	+0.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.26%	0.63%	-0.37%

Volatility

ZMAR vs. IBUF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) is 0.69%, while Innovator International Developed 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (IBUF) has a volatility of 3.06%. This indicates that ZMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IBUF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZMAR	IBUF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.69%	3.06%	-2.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.68%	5.29%	-3.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.17%	6.08%	-3.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.09%	6.76%	-3.67%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.09%	6.76%	-3.67%

ZMAR vs. IBUF - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZMAR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than IBUF's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZMAR vs. IBUF - Dividend Comparison

Neither ZMAR nor IBUF has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZMAR and IBUF in my portfolio?

ZMAR and IBUF have a correlation of 0.64, 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 IBUF?

IBUF has higher volatility (3.06%) compared to ZMAR (0.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZMAR dropped -2.89% vs IBUF's -5.92%.

Which ETF is better, ZMAR or IBUF?

On 1-year performance, IBUF leads with 12.08% vs 6.95% for ZMAR. On fees, ZMAR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, ZMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ZMAR or IBUF?

Over the 1-year period, IBUF has performed better with a 12.08% return vs 6.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZMAR or IBUF?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between ZMAR and IBUF?

Their fees differ too: 0.79% for ZMAR and 0.85% for IBUF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.23 vs 2.00), 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.