BFJL vs. QMAR

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

BFJL (FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - July) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - BFJL is a Defined Outcome fund managed by First Trust, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Over the past year, BFJL returned -15.77% vs 18.74% for QMAR. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.90% expense ratio.

Performance

BFJL vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - July (BFJL) 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, BFJL achieves a -4.47% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 12.12% return.

BFJL

• 1D: -0.40%
• 1M: 3.41%
• 6M: -7.73%
• YTD: -4.47%
• 1Y: -15.77%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: -0.30%
• 6M: 11.75%
• YTD: 12.12%
• 1Y: 18.74%
• 3Y*: 14.99%
• 5Y*: 11.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

BFJL vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BFJL FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - July	-4.47%	-7.43%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	12.12%	6.49%

Correlation

The correlation between BFJL and QMAR is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2025	0.35

Return for Risk

BFJL vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BFJL

BFJL Risk / Return Rank: 2
BFJL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
BFJL Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
BFJL Omega Ratio Rank: 1
BFJL Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
BFJL Martin Ratio Rank: 4

QMAR

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

BFJL vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - July (BFJL) 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.

	BFJL	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.21	2.82	-4.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.63	4.22	-5.84
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.80	1.63	-0.83
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.74	5.86	-6.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.03	32.52	-33.55

BFJL vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BFJL Sharpe Ratio is -1.21, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BFJL 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

BFJL vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BFJL drawdown since its inception was -21.27%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BFJL and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BFJL	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.27%	-19.83%	-1.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.27%	-3.21%	-18.06%
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	-18.46%	-1.02%	-17.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.67%	-3.23%	-9.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	15.27%	0.58%	+14.69%

Volatility

BFJL vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - July (BFJL) has a higher volatility of 2.86% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 2.36%. This indicates that BFJL'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

	BFJL	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.86%	2.36%	+0.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.80%	5.84%	+0.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.16%	6.67%	+6.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.27%	14.03%	-0.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.27%	13.77%	-0.50%

BFJL vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BFJL and QMAR have an expense ratio of 0.90%.

Dividends

BFJL vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

BFJL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.41%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
BFJL FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - July	1.41%	1.35%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BFJL and QMAR in my portfolio?

BFJL and QMAR have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BFJL or QMAR?

BFJL has higher volatility (2.86%) compared to QMAR (2.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BFJL dropped -21.27% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, BFJL or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 18.74% vs -15.77% for BFJL. Both ETFs have the same 0.90% expense ratio. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BFJL or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 18.74% return vs -15.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BFJL or QMAR?

BFJL and QMAR have the same expense ratio: 0.90% per year.

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

BFJL has the higher dividend yield at 1.41%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between BFJL and QMAR?

BFJL is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.82 vs -1.21), 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.