BALQ vs. QMAR
BALQ (iShares Nasdaq Premium Income Active ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. Both are actively managed. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BALQ charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.
Performance
BALQ vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BALQ achieves a 17.95% return, which is significantly higher than QMAR's 11.31% return.
BALQ
- 1D
- -0.54%
- 1M
- -0.66%
- YTD
- 17.95%
- 6M
- 16.38%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
QMAR
- 1D
- -0.08%
- 1M
- -0.85%
- YTD
- 11.31%
- 6M
- 11.15%
- 1Y
- 19.79%
- 3Y*
- 15.62%
- 5Y*
- 11.30%
- 10Y*
- —
BALQ vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BALQ iShares Nasdaq Premium Income Active ETF | 17.95% | 0.04% |
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 11.31% | 0.92% |
Correlation
The correlation between BALQ and QMAR is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 3, 2025 | 0.91 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BALQ vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank
BALQ
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
QMAR
BALQ vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Nasdaq Premium Income Active ETF (BALQ) 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.
| BALQ | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.71 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 6.18 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 37.11 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BALQ vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BALQ drawdown since its inception was -11.79%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BALQ and QMAR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BALQ | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -11.79% | -19.83% | +8.04% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -3.21% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -15.91% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -19.83% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.23% | -1.73% | -2.50% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.42% | -3.26% | +0.84% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 0.53% | — |
Volatility
BALQ vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BALQ | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 2.92% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 5.59% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.56% | 6.54% | +14.02% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.56% | 14.01% | +6.55% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.56% | 13.83% | +6.73% |
BALQ vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison
BALQ has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.
Dividends
BALQ vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison
BALQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.78%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
BALQ iShares Nasdaq Premium Income Active ETF | 4.78% | 0.95% |
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.91, BALQ and QMAR move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
On fees, BALQ is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
BALQ is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.
BALQ has the higher dividend yield at 4.78%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for BALQ and 0.90% for QMAR.
Find the right allocation for BALQ and QMAR
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer