Skip to content

FMAR vs ZALT

FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March

FMARCCboe

Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

ZALTACboe

Overlap

Expense ratio

ZALT −0.16pt a year

FMAR0.85%ZALT0.69%

Avg volume · 30D

ZALT 11.3×the volume

FMAR12.3KZALT138K

3Y return · a year

FMAR +4.9pt

FMAR+15.5%ZALT+10.6%

FMAR vs ZALT Performance

Oct 31, 2025 – Oct 30, 2026

+14.8%FMAR+7.1%ZALT

Oct 31, 2025 to Oct 30, 2026. FMAR +14.8%. ZALT +7.1%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.0%2.5%5%10%12.5%Oct 2025Apr 2026Oct 2026
Expense ratio
FMAR 0.85%
ZALT 0.69%, better
Fund size
FMAR $1.22B
ZALT $840M
1Y total return
FMAR +14.8%, better
ZALT +7.1%
Holdings
FMAR 3
ZALT 503
Avg volume (30D)
FMAR 12.3K sh
ZALT 138K sh, better
NAV per share
FMAR $53.62
ZALT $34.50
52W range

ETF.net Grade

FMAR: Cost 11, Risk 76, Mission not scored, Tradability 64, Holdings 63, Durability 82. ZALT: Cost 82, Risk 79, Mission 80, Tradability 65, Holdings 90, Durability 61.
Pillar letters and Scores for FMAR, ZALT, with each pillar’s weight
PillarFMARZALT
Cost30% weightF11A82Higher
Mission25% weightNot scoredA80
Risk15% weightA76A79Higher
Tradability15% weightB64B65Higher
Holdings10% weightB63A90Higher
Durability5% weightA82HigherB61

Rank among S&P 500 Buffer 9-12% funds

Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Same Category. FMAR and ZALT are both graded against the same 77 S&P 500 Buffer 9-12% funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

S&P 500 Buffer 9-12%⁠

Category · 77 funds
See all 77 ›

ZALT ranks 1st and FMAR 44th of 77 funds in the S&P 500 Buffer 9-12% Category.

  1. Rank 1AZALTInnovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - QuarterlyScore 77
  2. Rank 2BAUGPPGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - AugustScore 67
  3. Rank 44CFJULFT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - JulyScore 46
  4. Rank 44CFMARFT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - MarchScore 46
  5. Rank 44CFMAYFT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - MayScore 46

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

FMARCFT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March

ZALTAInnovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

In short

FMAR The March seat in First Trust's twelve-month buffer ladder. It holds SPY-linked options built to absorb the first 10% of a year's losses, in exchange for a ceiling on gains that resets every March.

ZALT The defined-outcome trade on a three-month clock: ZALT follows SPY up to a cap and buffers the first 10% of a decline, then resets both every quarter. Four fresh caps a year, at a fee under the shallow-buffer median.

Stated mandate

FMAR The Fund seeks to track the price return of the State Street® SPDR® S&P 500® ETF Trust, subject to an upside cap and protection against an initial portion of losses during the stated outcome period.

ZALT The fund seeks to follow SPY's return up to a predetermined cap while providing a 10% downside buffer over each three-month outcome period. It may be held indefinitely, with the defined outcomes resetting at the end of each period.

Why people hold it

  • FMAR The mechanism is legible: over each one-year outcome period it targets the first 10% of SPY's decline as a cushion, giving up gains above a cap struck at the March reset.
  • Twelve monthly siblings run the same playbook (FJAN, FAPR, FSEP and the rest), so a start month is a choice, or you can ladder several and stop leaning on one reset date.
  • Running since 2021 and now a multi-billion-dollar fund, with the reference asset being the SPY trust itself rather than a bespoke index, inside a standard 1940 Act ETF wrapper.
  • ZALT Resets on a quarterly clock: a new cap is set the first day of each calendar quarter and the 10% buffer starts over. Can be held indefinitely, no rolling into a new ticker.sec.govcboe.com
  • At 0.69% it undercuts the going rate for 10% buffer funds on the S&P 500, where peers like SIXZ, JULT and BJUN charge 0.74% to 0.79%.
  • The cushion is built from FLEX options on SPY itself, so the thing you are hedged against is the same fund most investors already watch.sec.gov
  • Sits among the stronger implementations in its shallow-buffer peer group on cost and ease of trading.

Worth knowing

  • FMAR 0.85% a year sits at the pricier end of the buffer shelf. Laddered alternatives are cheaper, with BUFB listed at 0.10%.
  • The 10% buffer and the cap belong to a full outcome period. Buy mid-period and you inherit whatever cushion and headroom remain, not the headline terms.
  • It trades thinly and hasn't been paying distributions, so limit orders earn their keep and any return has to show up in the share price.
  • ZALT Three months of upside buys a lower ceiling. Each quarter's cap is priced off three-month options, so it lands well below what a 12-month buffer fund can offer.sec.gov
  • Buy mid-quarter and you inherit whatever cap and buffer are left, not the full 10%. The prospectus says so plainly.sec.gov
  • The fee comes out of the cushion: with the 0.69% fee counted, the prospectus puts the net buffer at 9.82% per period. No distributions so far, so return shows up in price.sec.gov

Full FMAR profile⁠

Full ZALT profile⁠

FMAR vs ZALT 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.

FMAR vs ZALT Cost

Overpaying FMAR vs ZALT

$2,770

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

  • FMAR 0.85%

    $16,199

  • ZALT 0.69%

    $13,429

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • FMAR 0.85%
  • ZALT 0.69%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$5K$10K$15K$20K051015202530FMAR $16,199ZALT $13,429

Year by year

YearFMARZALTOverpaying
10$1,508$1,232$276
20$5,706$4,697$1,009
30$16,199$13,429$2,770

Expense ratio

  • 0.85%FMAR
  • 0.69%ZALT, cheaper
  • Middle half of S&P 500 Buffer 9-12% funds
  • Median 0.79%

ZALT 14th cheapest of 77 funds

FMAR 60th cheapest of 77 funds

FMAR vs ZALT Dividends

Last 12 months to Oct 30, 2026
Payout (12M)
FMAR None
ZALT None

Distribution history

FMARAll FMAR payments⁠

No distribution history available.

ZALTAll ZALT payments⁠

No distribution history available.

FMAR vs ZALT Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
FMAR 6.6%ZALT 3.8%, better
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
FMAR 1.57, betterZALT 1.50
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
FMAR −14.4%ZALT −8.2%since Oct 2023
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
FMAR 0.50ZALT 0.29

FMAR and ZALT in the news

Popular comparisons

  • FMARCvsAUGPB

    FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March · PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - August

    Expense ratio
    0.85% · 0.50%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • ZALTAvsAUGPB

    Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly · PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - August

    Expense ratio
    0.69% · 0.50%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • FMARCvsTENJB

    FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March · iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Jun ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.85% · 0.53%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • ZALTAvsTENJB

    Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly · iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Jun ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.69% · 0.53%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • FMARCvsSIXJB

    FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March · AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 Jan/Jul ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.85% · 0.74%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • ZALTAvsSIXJB

    Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly · AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 Jan/Jul ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.69% · 0.74%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.