EOCT vs TMAR: Grades, Fees and Holdings Compared

Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF

EOCTBNYSE Arca

FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March

TMARCCboe

Overlap

0.0%by weight

Expense ratio

EOCT −0.06pt a year

EOCT0.89%TMAR0.95%

Avg volume · 30D

EOCT 2.2×the volume

EOCT14.6KTMAR6.54K

EOCT vs TMAR Performance

Oct 31, 2025 – Oct 30, 2026

+7.4%EOCT+12.4%TMAR

Expense ratio: EOCT 0.89%, better; TMAR 0.95%
Fund size: EOCT $125M; TMAR $16M
1Y total return: EOCT +7.4%; TMAR +12.4%, better
Holdings: EOCT 3; TMAR 3
Avg volume (30D): EOCT 14.6K sh, better; TMAR 6.54K sh
NAV per share: EOCT $33.43; TMAR $25.22
52W range

ETF.net Grade

Pillar letters and Scores for EOCT, TMAR, with each pillar’s weight
Pillar	EOCT	TMAR
Cost30% weight	C47Higher	F17
Mission25% weight	A91	Not scored
Risk15% weight	A71Higher	B66
Tradability15% weight	A76Higher	B67
Holdings10% weight	Not scored	Not scored
Durability5% weight	A80Higher	B68

Rank among Emerging Markets Buffer funds

How we build Categories ›

Same Category. EOCT and TMAR are both graded against the same 14 Emerging Markets Buffer funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Emerging Markets Buffer⁠

Category · 14 funds

See all 14 ›

EOCT ranks 2nd and TMAR 7th of 14 funds in the Emerging Markets Buffer Category.

Rank 1BEBUFInnovator Emerging Markets 10 Buffer ETFScore 62
Rank 2BEJANInnovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - JanuaryScore 61
Rank 2BEOCTInnovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETFScore 61
Rank 4BEJULInnovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETFScore 58
Rank 6CTDECFT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - DecemberScore 44
Rank 7CTMARFT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - MarchScore 43
Rank 8CBUFEFT Vest Laddered Emerging Markets Buffer ETFScore 42

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

EOCTBInnovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF

TMARCFT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March

In short

EOCT Buffer ETFs mostly babysit the S&P 500. EOCT aims the same machinery at emerging markets: upside in the iShares MSCI EM ETF up to a cap, with the first 15% of a drop absorbed, then a reset every October.

TMAR No data

Stated mandate

EOCT The fund seeks capped exposure to the iShares MSCI EM ETF while protecting against the first 15% of losses during each approximately annual outcome period. It resets at the end of each period and may be held indefinitely.

TMAR No data

Why people hold it

EOCT Downside buffer where it is rare. Defined-outcome funds cluster around US large caps; this one applies a 15% buffer to emerging market stocks via the iShares MSCI EM ETF.innovatoretfs.com
The rules are fixed, not discretionary: 15% of losses absorbed and upside capped over each roughly one-year period, which resets on October 1. No manager judgment calls mid-period.innovatoretfs.com
October is one rung of a ladder. Innovator runs the same emerging markets buffer on January, April and July start dates (EJAN, EAPR, EJUL), so entry points can be staggered.innovatoretfs.com innovatoretfs.com 2
At 0.89%, the fee sits right at the middle of the buffer-ETF pack, not at the expensive end.

TMAR No data

Worth knowing

EOCT Protection is rented, not free: the cap is reset each October off option prices at that moment. Emerging market swings can be violent, and the buffer sits before fees.innovatoretfs.com
It tracks the reference ETF's price move, so emerging market dividends are not passed through. The fund has not been paying distributions.
Small and lightly traded, and buying mid-period means your own buffer and cap differ from the headline numbers. Limit orders and a look at the issuer's daily figures help.innovatoretfs.com

TMAR No data

Full EOCT profile⁠

Full TMAR profile⁠

EOCT vs TMAR Holdings

How EOCT and TMAR differ

Overlap by weight

0.0%

Shared holdings make up 0.0% of EOCT and 0.0% of TMAR.

Level by level

Holdings0 in both0.0%
Countryby domicile100%

Sector

No Sector split for TMAR.

Country, concentration and asset class

Country by domicile

Country weights in EOCT and TMAR, widest gap first
Country	More in EOCTMore in TMAR	EOCT	TMAR
Taiwan	Same weight	30.5%	30.5%
South Korea	Same weight	20.2%	20.2%
China	Same weight	19.9%	19.9%
India	Same weight	12.1%	12.1%
Brazil	Same weight	4.2%	4.2%
South Africa	Same weight	3.7%	3.7%
Mexico	Same weight	1.9%	1.9%
Poland	Same weight	1.3%	1.3%
Other countries (10)	Same weight	6.1%	6.1%

Outside the US: EOCT 1% developed, 99% emerging. TMAR 1% developed, 99% emerging.

Concentration

Weight in the 10 largest Holdings

EOCT108.4%
TMAR102.8%

Securities held

EOCT3
TMAR2

Asset class

EOCT: Equity
TMAR: Multi-Asset

Holdings

Only in EOCT3
In both0
Only in TMAR2

Only in EOCT

3 securities, 100% of EOCT by weight

Eem 09/30/2027 0.67 C94.68%
Eem 09/30/2027 66.79 P12.81%
Us Bank Mmda - Usbgfs 9 09/01/20370.93%

Only in TMAR

2 securities, 100% of TMAR by weight

2027-03-19 iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF C 0.5699.03%
2027-03-19 iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF P 55.643.03%

Weight gaps

EOCT and TMAR share no securities.

All 6 EOCT holdings⁠All 4 TMAR holdings⁠

How we measure overlap

Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.

EOCT vs TMAR Cost

Overpaying TMAR vs EOCT

$997

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

EOCT 0.89%
$16,872
TMAR 0.95%
$17,869

Amount$10,000

Years30 years

Cost over time

EOCT 0.89%
TMAR 0.95%
Overpaying

Year by year

Year	EOCT	TMAR	Overpaying
10	$1,576	$1,678	$102
20	$5,953	$6,322	$369
30	$16,872	$17,869	$997

Expense ratio

0.89%EOCT, cheaper
0.95%TMAR

EOCT0.89%TMAR0.95%

0.30%1.44%

Middle half of Emerging Markets Buffer funds
Median 0.89%

EOCT 5th cheapest of 14 funds

TMAR 10th cheapest of 14 funds

EOCT vs TMAR Dividends

Last 12 months to Oct 30, 2026

Payout (12M): EOCT None; TMAR None

Distribution history

EOCTAll EOCT payments⁠

No distribution history available.

TMARAll TMAR payments⁠

No distribution history available.

EOCT vs TMAR Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years: EOCT 8.5%TMAR 9.5%since Apr 2025
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years: EOCT 1.18TMAR 1.31since Apr 2025
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years: EOCT −20.1%TMAR −9.9%since Mar 2025
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years: EOCT 0.45TMAR 0.48; Market = 1

Popular comparisons

EOCTBvsEBUFB
Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF · Innovator Emerging Markets 10 Buffer ETF
Expense ratio
0.89% · 0.89%
Category
TMARCvsEBUFB
FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March · Innovator Emerging Markets 10 Buffer ETF
Expense ratio
0.95% · 0.89%
Category
EOCTBvsEJANB
Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF · Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - January
Expense ratio
0.89% · 0.89%
Category
TMARCvsEJANB
FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March · Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - January
Expense ratio
0.95% · 0.89%
Category
EOCTBvsEJULB
Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF · Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF
Expense ratio
0.89% · 0.89%
Category
TMARCvsEJULB
FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March · Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF
Expense ratio
0.95% · 0.89%
Category