MARO vs UFEB
YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF vs Innovator US Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - February
Which is better, MARO or UFEB?
UFEB has been ahead.
UFEB has a lower expense ratio. UFEB led over 1Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | MARO | UFEB |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.79%Best |
| AUM | $26M | $162M |
| Dividend Yield | 250.93% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 24 | 12 |
| YTD Return | -36.08% | +8.00%Best |
| 1Y Return | -55.48% | +9.79%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.18% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +7.36% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 55.7% | 5.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -79.3% | -8.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.9 years | $2,879 | $11,952Best |
| Fund Family | YieldMax ETF | Innovator ETFs Trust |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Dec 9, 2024 | Jan 31, 2020 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 10, 2024 to Nov 11, 2026 (1.9 years).
MARO vs UFEB growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 1.9 years both funds cover.
MARO vs UFEB Performance
YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF (MARO) is an ETF from YieldMax ETF and Innovator US Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - February (UFEB) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust. Over the past year MARO returned -55.48% while UFEB returned +9.79%. Year to date, MARO is down 36.08% versus a gain of 8.00% for UFEB.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MARO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 55.7% compared with 5.5% for UFEB. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -79.3% for MARO and -8.7% for UFEB. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.56. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
MARO charges 1.00% per year while UFEB charges 0.79%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $79 annually, a gap of $21 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, MARO currently yields 250.93% against 0.00% for UFEB.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of MARO and UFEB you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, MARO or UFEB?
MARO has an expense ratio of 1.00% while UFEB charges 0.79%. UFEB is the cheaper option, by $21 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, MARO or UFEB?
Over the past year MARO returned -55.48% vs +9.79% for UFEB, so UFEB leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), MARO annualized -48.07% vs +9.84% for UFEB. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, MARO or UFEB?
MARO has been the more volatile fund at 55.7% annualized versus 5.5% for UFEB. Worst drawdown: MARO -79.3% vs UFEB -8.7%.
Should I hold both MARO and UFEB?
MARO and UFEB have a monthly-return correlation of 0.56, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, MARO or UFEB?
MARO yields 250.93% while UFEB yields 0.00%, so MARO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is UFEB better than MARO?
UFEB has a lower expense ratio. UFEB led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.