Screener
KMAR vs GTO
Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March vs Invesco Total Return Bond ETF
Key differences
- GTO costs 0.44% less per year.
- GTO is significantly larger than KMAR — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- KMAR is classified as alternative, while GTO is fixed income — different risk/return profiles.
- KMAR follows a structured outcome strategy; GTO uses active selection.
- GTO has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| KMAR | GTO | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.79% | 0.35% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $35M | $2.3B |
| Since | 2025 | 2016 |
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 4.75% |
| Asset class | alternative | fixed income |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | structured outcome | active selection |
| CAGR 1Y | +26.0% | +6.9% |
| CAGR 3Y | N/A | +5.0% |
| CAGR 5Y | N/A | +0.2% |
| Sharpe 3Y | N/A | 0.29 |
| Volatility 1Y | 9.38% | 3.47% |
| Max drawdown | -10.06% | -20.75% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to KMAR and GTO
Explore further