ZMAR vs. JULB
ZMAR (Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March) and JULB (Aptus July Buffer ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ZMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for JULB.
Performance
ZMAR vs. JULB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ZMAR achieves a 2.38% return, which is significantly lower than JULB's 6.38% return.
ZMAR
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- -0.02%
- YTD
- 2.38%
- 6M
- 2.42%
- 1Y
- 6.95%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
JULB
- 1D
- -0.37%
- 1M
- 0.61%
- YTD
- 6.38%
- 6M
- 6.05%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ZMAR vs. JULB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March | 2.38% | 1.49% |
JULB Aptus July Buffer ETF | 6.38% | 2.44% |
Correlation
The correlation between ZMAR and JULB is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2025 | 0.84 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
ZMAR vs. JULB — Risk / Return Rank
ZMAR
JULB
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
ZMAR vs. JULB - 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 Aptus July Buffer ETF (JULB). 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 | JULB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.72 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.85 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 26.92 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ZMAR vs. JULB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ZMAR drawdown since its inception was -2.89%, smaller than the maximum JULB drawdown of -5.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZMAR and JULB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ZMAR | JULB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -2.89% | -5.24% | +2.35% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.44% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.32% | -0.43% | +0.11% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.32% | -0.83% | +0.51% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.26% | — | — |
Volatility
ZMAR vs. JULB - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ZMAR | JULB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.69% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.68% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.17% | 6.84% | -4.67% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.09% | 6.84% | -3.75% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.09% | 6.84% | -3.75% |
ZMAR vs. JULB - Expense Ratio Comparison
ZMAR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than JULB's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
ZMAR vs. JULB - Dividend Comparison
Neither ZMAR nor JULB has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
ZMAR and JULB have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, JULB is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
JULB is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for ZMAR.
ZMAR and JULB have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Aptus Capital Advisors. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for ZMAR and 0.25% for JULB.
Find the right allocation for ZMAR and JULB
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer