Skip to content

MART vs ZALT

AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer10 Mar ETF

MARTCCboe

Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

ZALTACboe

Overlap

Expense ratio

ZALT −0.05pt a year

MART0.74%ZALT0.69%

Avg volume · 30D

ZALT 144.5×the volume

MART956ZALT138K

3Y return · a year

MART +7.0pt

MART+17.6%ZALT+10.6%

MART vs ZALT Performance

Oct 31, 2025 – Oct 30, 2026

+12.8%MART+7.1%ZALT

Oct 31, 2025 to Oct 30, 2026. MART +12.8%. ZALT +7.1%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.0%2.5%5%10%15%Oct 2025Apr 2026Oct 2026
Expense ratio
MART 0.74%
ZALT 0.69%, better
Fund size
MART $29M
ZALT $840M
1Y total return
MART +12.8%, better
ZALT +7.1%
Holdings
MART 2
ZALT 503
Avg volume (30D)
MART 956 sh
ZALT 138K sh, better
NAV per share
MART $43.37
ZALT $34.50
52W range

ETF.net Grade

MART: Cost 68, Risk 71, Mission not scored, Tradability 31, Holdings 45, Durability 27. ZALT: Cost 82, Risk 79, Mission 80, Tradability 65, Holdings 90, Durability 61.
Pillar letters and Scores for MART, ZALT, with each pillar’s weight
PillarMARTZALT
Cost30% weightB68A82Higher
Mission25% weightNot scoredA80
Risk15% weightA71A79Higher
Tradability15% weightD31B65Higher
Holdings10% weightC45A90Higher
Durability5% weightD27B61Higher

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. MART 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 MART 27th 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 27CBJANInnovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETFScore 55
  4. Rank 27CMARTAllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer10 Mar ETFScore 55
  5. Rank 27CSIXFAllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 Feb/Aug ETFScore 55

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

MARTCAllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer10 Mar ETF

ZALTAInnovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly

In short

MART A March-reset buffer fund: it absorbs the first 10% of a year's drop in an S&P 500 ETF and caps the upside for that stretch in exchange. Standard recipe for the category, priced a shade under the typical rival.

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

MART The Fund seeks to provide downside-loss protection covering the first 10% of losses on its Underlying ETF, before fees and expenses.

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

  • MART The contract is legible: over each one-year period starting in March, the first 10% of the S&P 500 ETF's losses are absorbed before fees and expenses, with upside capped at a level set that March.
  • A 0.74% fee undercuts the typical S&P 500 buffer fund, which matters in a wrapper where the cushion is measured before fees and expenses.
  • No exotic reference: the fund tracks outcomes against the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, and the combination of plain benchmark and low fee puts it in the upper half of a crowded buffer cohort.
  • 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

  • MART Small asset base, light volume. Spreads can widen, so limit orders and a glance at intraday value matter more here than with a mega-cap index fund.
  • Buy mid-period and you inherit whatever buffer and cap are left, not the headline 10%. The design lines up cleanly only from one March reset to the next.
  • Income isn't part of the package; returns show up in price. Cheaper buffer builds exist in the same cohort, like PSFF at 0.10% and BUFP at 0.50%.
  • 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 MART profile⁠

Full ZALT profile⁠

MART 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.

MART vs ZALT Cost

Overpaying MART vs ZALT

$878

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

  • MART 0.74%

    $14,307

  • ZALT 0.69%

    $13,429

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • MART 0.74%
  • 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$15K051015202530MART $14,307ZALT $13,429

Year by year

YearMARTZALTOverpaying
10$1,319$1,232$87
20$5,015$4,697$318
30$14,307$13,429$878

Expense ratio

  • 0.74%MART
  • 0.69%ZALT, cheaper
  • Middle half of S&P 500 Buffer 9-12% funds
  • Median 0.79%

ZALT 14th cheapest of 77 funds

MART 17th cheapest of 77 funds

MART vs ZALT Dividends

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

Distribution history

MARTAll MART payments⁠

No distribution history available.

ZALTAll ZALT payments⁠

No distribution history available.

MART vs ZALT Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
MART 7.5%ZALT 3.8%, better
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
MART 1.61, betterZALT 1.50
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
MART −11.6%since Mar 2023ZALT −8.2%since Oct 2023
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
MART 0.60ZALT 0.29

Popular comparisons

  • MARTCvsAUGPB

    AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer10 Mar ETF · PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - August

    Expense ratio
    0.74% · 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.
  • MARTCvsTENJB

    AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer10 Mar ETF · iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Jun ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.74% · 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.
  • MARTCvsSIXJB

    AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer10 Mar ETF · AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 Jan/Jul ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.74% · 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.