BFOC vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BFOC (FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - October) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - BFOC is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.90% expense ratio.

Performance

BFOC vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - October (BFOC) 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, BFOC achieves a -7.58% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.40% return.

BFOC

• 1D: -0.67%
• 1M: -1.05%
• YTD: -7.58%
• 6M: -7.79%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -1.06%
• 1M: -0.77%
• YTD: 11.40%
• 6M: 11.38%
• 1Y: 20.76%
• 3Y*: 15.65%
• 5Y*: 11.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

BFOC vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BFOC FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - October	-7.58%	-9.75%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.40%	2.55%

Correlation

The correlation between BFOC and QMAR is 0.51, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2025	0.51

Return for Risk

BFOC vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BFOC

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

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
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.

BFOC vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	BFOC	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	3.19	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	4.77	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.74	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	6.49	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	39.78	—

Drawdowns

BFOC vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BFOC drawdown since its inception was -18.41%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BFOC and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BFOC	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.41%	-19.83%	+1.42%
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	-18.36%	-1.65%	-16.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.84%	-3.26%	-9.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.52%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BFOC	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	12.31%	6.55%	+5.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.31%	14.01%	-1.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.31%	13.83%	-1.52%

BFOC vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BFOC vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BFOC nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BFOC and QMAR in my portfolio?

BFOC and QMAR have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BFOC or QMAR?

Both ETFs have the same 0.90% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BFOC or QMAR?

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

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

BFOC and QMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BFOC and QMAR?

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