ZMAR vs. QDEC

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

ZMAR (Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March) and QDEC (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December) are both exchange-traded funds - ZMAR is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Innovator, while QDEC is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by FT Vest. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ZMAR returned 6.61% vs 20.13% for QDEC. Their 0.77 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. ZMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QDEC.

Performance

ZMAR vs. QDEC - 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 FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZMAR achieves a 3.51% return, which is significantly lower than QDEC's 10.08% return.

ZMAR

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: 0.74%
• 6M: 2.98%
• YTD: 3.51%
• 1Y: 6.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.25%

QDEC

• 1D: 1.07%
• 1M: 1.56%
• 6M: 9.71%
• YTD: 10.08%
• 1Y: 20.13%
• 3Y*: 16.86%
• 5Y*: 10.01%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.09%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
QDEC FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December	$1.45M	$864.88K	$1.03M
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March	$98.71K	$99.15K	$294.76K

ZMAR vs. QDEC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ZMAR Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March	3.51%	5.30%
QDEC FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December	10.08%	18.20%

Correlation

The correlation between ZMAR and QDEC is 0.79, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2025	0.77

The correlation between ZMAR and QDEC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

ZMAR vs. QDEC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ZMAR

ZMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
ZMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
ZMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
ZMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
ZMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
ZMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 96

QDEC

QDEC Risk / Return Rank: 75
QDEC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
QDEC Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
QDEC Omega Ratio Rank: 76
QDEC Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
QDEC Martin Ratio Rank: 81

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ZMAR vs. QDEC - 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 FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC). 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	QDEC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.12	1.95	+1.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.96	2.78	+2.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.69	1.36	+0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.61	2.67	+1.94
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	25.13	12.02	+13.11

ZMAR vs. QDEC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.12, which is higher than the QDEC Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZMAR and QDEC, 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. QDEC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZMAR drawdown since its inception was -2.89%, smaller than the maximum QDEC drawdown of -25.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZMAR and QDEC.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZMAR	QDEC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.89%	-25.25%	+22.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.44%	-7.58%	+6.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.08%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.25%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.30%	-4.92%	+4.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.26%	1.68%	-1.42%

Volatility

ZMAR vs. QDEC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) is 0.52%, while FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) has a volatility of 3.37%. This indicates that ZMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QDEC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZMAR	QDEC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.52%	3.37%	-2.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.71%	8.36%	-6.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.15%	10.44%	-8.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.00%	14.82%	-11.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.00%	14.53%	-11.53%

ZMAR vs. QDEC - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZMAR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than QDEC's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZMAR vs. QDEC - Dividend Comparison

Neither ZMAR nor QDEC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZMAR and QDEC in my portfolio?

ZMAR and QDEC have a correlation of 0.79, 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 QDEC?

QDEC has higher volatility (3.37%) compared to ZMAR (0.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZMAR dropped -2.89% vs QDEC's -25.25%.

Which ETF is better, ZMAR or QDEC?

On 1-year performance, QDEC leads with 20.13% vs 6.61% for ZMAR. On fees, ZMAR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, ZMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ZMAR or QDEC?

Over the 1-year period, QDEC has performed better with a 20.13% return vs 6.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZMAR or QDEC?

ZMAR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QDEC.

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

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

What is the main difference between ZMAR and QDEC?

ZMAR is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QDEC is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for ZMAR and 0.90% for QDEC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.12 vs 1.95), 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.