Screener
PICB vs KMAR
Invesco International Corporate Bond ETF vs Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March
Key differences
- PICB costs 0.29% less per year.
- PICB is significantly larger than KMAR — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- PICB is classified as fixed income, while KMAR is alternative — different risk/return profiles.
- PICB follows a index tracking strategy; KMAR uses structured outcome.
- PICB has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| PICB | KMAR | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.50% | 0.79% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $360M | $35M |
| Since | 2010 | 2025 |
| Dividend yield | 3.29% | 0.00% |
| Asset class | fixed income | alternative |
| Region | — | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | structured outcome |
| CAGR 1Y | +4.0% | +26.0% |
| CAGR 3Y | +6.3% | N/A |
| CAGR 5Y | -2.1% | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.34 | N/A |
| Volatility 1Y | 7.82% | 9.38% |
| Max drawdown | -37.15% | -10.06% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to PICB and KMAR
Explore further