PBJN vs ZMAR
PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF - June vs Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March
Which is better, PBJN or ZMAR?
PBJN has been ahead.
PBJN has a lower expense ratio. PBJN 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 | PBJN | ZMAR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50%Best | 0.79% |
| AUM | $59M | $110M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 14 | 21 |
| YTD Return | +5.51%Best | +4.40% |
| 1Y Return | +7.67%Best | +6.08% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 4.9% | 1.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -7.4% | -2.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.6 years | $11,705Best | $11,058 |
| Fund Family | PGIM Investments | Innovator ETFs Trust |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | May 31, 2024 | Mar 3, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: 3Y Return (annualized), 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 15, 2026 (1.6 years).
PBJN 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.
PBJN vs ZMAR Performance
PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF - June (PBJN) is an ETF from PGIM Investments and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr March (ZMAR) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust. Over the past year PBJN returned +7.67% while ZMAR returned +6.08%. Year to date, PBJN is up 5.51% versus a gain of 4.40% for ZMAR.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PBJN has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 4.9% compared with 1.8% for ZMAR. 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 -7.4% for PBJN 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 0.81. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
PBJN charges 0.50% per year while ZMAR charges 0.79%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $79 annually, a gap of $29 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, PBJN currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for ZMAR.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of PBJN 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, PBJN or ZMAR?
PBJN has an expense ratio of 0.50% while ZMAR charges 0.79%. PBJN is the cheaper option, by $29 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, PBJN or ZMAR?
Over the past year PBJN returned +7.67% vs +6.08% for ZMAR, so PBJN leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), PBJN annualized +10.34% vs +6.49% for ZMAR. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, PBJN or ZMAR?
PBJN has been the more volatile fund at 4.9% annualized versus 1.8% for ZMAR. Worst drawdown: PBJN -7.4% vs ZMAR -2.3%.
Should I hold both PBJN and ZMAR?
PBJN and ZMAR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.81, 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, PBJN or ZMAR?
PBJN yields 0.00% while ZMAR yields 0.00%, so ZMAR currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ZMAR better than PBJN?
PBJN has a lower expense ratio. PBJN 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.