BFEB vs MARO
Innovator US Equity Buffer ETF - February vs YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF
Which is better, BFEB or MARO?
BFEB has been ahead.
BFEB has a lower expense ratio. BFEB led over 1Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BFEB | MARO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79%Best | 1.00% |
| AUM | $208M | $48M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 207.22% |
| Holdings | 18 | 21 |
| YTD Return | +11.67%Best | -30.99% |
| 1Y Return | +15.60%Best | -65.63% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.04% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.68% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 8.4%Best | 52.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -13.8%Best | -72.0% |
| $10,000 over 1.8 years | $12,570Best | $3,155 |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | YieldMax ETF |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Feb 3, 2020 | Dec 9, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 10, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.8 years).
BFEB vs MARO growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 1.8 years both funds cover.
BFEB vs MARO Performance
Innovator US Equity Buffer ETF - February (BFEB) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF (MARO) is an ETF from YieldMax ETF. Over the past year BFEB returned +15.60% while MARO returned -65.63%. Year to date, BFEB is up 11.67% versus a loss of 30.99% for MARO.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MARO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 52.8% compared with 8.4% for BFEB. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -13.8% for BFEB and -72.0% for MARO. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.61. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BFEB charges 0.79% per year while MARO charges 1.00%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $100 annually, a gap of $21 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BFEB currently yields 0.00% against 207.22% for MARO.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BFEB and MARO you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BFEB or MARO?
BFEB has an expense ratio of 0.79% while MARO charges 1.00%. BFEB is the cheaper option, by $21 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BFEB or MARO?
Over the past year BFEB returned +15.60% vs -65.63% for MARO, so BFEB leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), BFEB annualized +13.55% vs -47.32% for MARO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BFEB or MARO?
MARO has been the more volatile fund at 52.8% annualized versus 8.4% for BFEB. Worst drawdown: BFEB -13.8% vs MARO -72.0%.
Should I hold both BFEB and MARO?
BFEB and MARO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.61, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, BFEB or MARO?
BFEB yields 0.00% while MARO yields 207.22%, so MARO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MARO better than BFEB?
BFEB has a lower expense ratio. BFEB led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.