LOCT vs ZMAR
Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - October vs Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March
Which is better, LOCT or ZMAR?
ZMAR has been ahead.
ZMAR 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 | LOCT | ZMAR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79%Tie | 0.79%Tie |
| AUM | $11M | $112M |
| Dividend Yield | 5.18% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 12 | 21 |
| YTD Return | -0.06% | +4.32%Best |
| 1Y Return | +1.20% | +6.04%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -0.04% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 1.8%Tie | 1.8%Tie |
| Max Drawdown | -4.7% | -2.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.6 years | $10,447 | $11,053Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | Innovator ETFs Trust |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Oct 2, 2023 | Mar 3, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.6 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 3, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.6 years).
LOCT vs ZMAR 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 1.6 years both funds cover.
LOCT vs ZMAR Performance
Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - October (LOCT) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust. Over the past year LOCT returned +1.20% while ZMAR returned +6.04%. Year to date, LOCT is down 0.06% versus a gain of 4.32% for ZMAR.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LOCT and ZMAR have been equally volatile, both at 1.8% annualized.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -4.7% for LOCT and -2.3% for ZMAR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.87. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LOCT charges 0.79% per year while ZMAR charges 0.79%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $79 annually. On income, LOCT currently yields 5.18% against 0.00% for ZMAR.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of LOCT and ZMAR 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, LOCT or ZMAR?
LOCT has an expense ratio of 0.79% while ZMAR charges 0.79%. At the precision these are quoted to, they cost the same.
Which performed better, LOCT or ZMAR?
Over the past year LOCT returned +1.20% vs +6.04% for ZMAR, so ZMAR leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), LOCT annualized +2.77% vs +6.46% for ZMAR. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, LOCT or ZMAR?
LOCT and ZMAR have been equally volatile, both at 1.8% annualized. Worst drawdown: LOCT -4.7% vs ZMAR -2.3%.
Should I hold both LOCT and ZMAR?
LOCT and ZMAR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.87, 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, LOCT or ZMAR?
LOCT yields 5.18% while ZMAR yields 0.00%, so LOCT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ZMAR better than LOCT?
ZMAR 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.