ABFL vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

ABFL (Abacus FCF Leaders ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - ABFL is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Abacus, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, ABFL returned 12.33%/yr vs 11.72%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ABFL charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

ABFL vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ABFL achieves a 15.91% return, which is significantly higher than QMAR's 11.99% return.

ABFL

• 1D: 1.15%
• 1M: 1.18%
• YTD: 15.91%
• 6M: 15.44%
• 1Y: 18.29%
• 3Y*: 17.78%
• 5Y*: 12.33%
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 0.20%
• YTD: 11.99%
• 6M: 12.82%
• 1Y: 21.62%
• 3Y*: 15.91%
• 5Y*: 11.72%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ABFL vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ABFL Abacus FCF Leaders ETF	15.91%	8.07%	18.26%	22.97%	-14.60%	24.85%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.99%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-16.56%	12.87%

Correlation

The correlation between ABFL and QMAR is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2021	0.80

The correlation between ABFL and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

ABFL vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ABFL	QMAR
Technology	35.2%	54.2%
Industrials	20.9%	2.8%
Healthcare	12.5%	4.2%
Energy	7.9%	0.6%
Consumer Defensive	7.3%	7.6%
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	12.2%
Basic Materials	4.3%	1.2%
Communication Services	2.9%	15.5%
Financial Services	2.8%	0.2%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

ABFL vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ABFL

ABFL Risk / Return Rank: 43
ABFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
ABFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
ABFL Omega Ratio Rank: 33
ABFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
ABFL Martin Ratio Rank: 53

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 96
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ABFL vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ABFL	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.15	3.39	-2.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.64	5.11	-3.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.80	-0.60
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.56	6.76	-4.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.19	42.85	-34.66

ABFL vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ABFL Sharpe Ratio is 1.15, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ABFL and QMAR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ABFL vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ABFL drawdown since its inception was -34.95%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ABFL and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	ABFL	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.95%	-19.83%	-15.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.17%	-3.21%	-3.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.92%	-15.91%	-4.01%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.88%	-19.83%	-2.05%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.73%	-1.12%	-0.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.98%	-3.27%	-1.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.25%	0.51%	+1.74%

Volatility

ABFL vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) has a higher volatility of 5.94% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 2.38%. This indicates that ABFL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ABFL	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.94%	2.38%	+3.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.68%	5.32%	+7.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.02%	6.41%	+9.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.22%	13.99%	+3.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.75%	13.84%	+4.91%

ABFL vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

ABFL has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

ABFL vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

ABFL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.54%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ABFL Abacus FCF Leaders ETF	0.54%	0.62%	0.70%	0.94%	1.36%	9.63%	0.41%	0.72%	0.62%	0.40%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ABFL and QMAR in my portfolio?

ABFL and QMAR have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ABFL or QMAR?

ABFL has higher volatility (5.94%) compared to QMAR (2.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ABFL dropped -34.95% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, ABFL or QMAR?

On 5-year performance, ABFL leads with 12.33% vs 11.72% for QMAR. On fees, ABFL is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ABFL or QMAR?

Over the 5-year period, ABFL has performed better with a 12.33% return vs 11.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ABFL or QMAR?

ABFL is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ABFL or QMAR?

ABFL has the higher dividend yield at 0.54%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between ABFL and QMAR?

ABFL is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Abacus and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for ABFL and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.39 vs 1.15), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.