BALQ vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

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 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BALQ charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

BALQ vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Nasdaq Premium Income Active ETF (BALQ) 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, BALQ achieves a 22.89% return, which is significantly higher than QMAR's 13.06% return.

BALQ

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 11.15%
• YTD: 22.89%
• 6M: 22.29%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 2.81%
• YTD: 13.06%
• 6M: 14.01%
• 1Y: 23.38%
• 3Y*: 16.73%
• 5Y*: 12.13%
• 10Y*: —

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

BALQ vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BALQ iShares Nasdaq Premium Income Active ETF	22.89%	-0.49%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	0.85%

Correlation

The correlation between BALQ and QMAR is 0.89, 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 4, 2025	0.89

Return for Risk

BALQ vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 96
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
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.

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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BALQ	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	3.86	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.81	0.91	+1.91

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	BALQ	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest 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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.21%	-0.19%	-0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.37%	-3.28%	+0.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.45%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BALQ	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	1.27%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	4.85%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.03%	6.09%	+11.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.03%	13.97%	+4.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.03%	13.85%	+4.18%

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 4.59%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
BALQ iShares Nasdaq Premium Income Active ETF	4.59%	0.95%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BALQ and QMAR in my portfolio?

BALQ and QMAR have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BALQ or QMAR?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, BALQ or QMAR?

BALQ is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

BALQ has the higher dividend yield at 4.59%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between BALQ and QMAR?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for BALQ and 0.90% for QMAR.