BJUN vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

BJUN (Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - BJUN is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the S&P 500 Price Return Index, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. BJUN is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, BJUN returned 8.09%/yr vs 11.38%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BJUN charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

BJUN vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June (BJUN) 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, BJUN achieves a 2.75% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.74% return.

BJUN

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: -1.69%
• YTD: 2.75%
• 6M: 2.45%
• 1Y: 10.93%
• 3Y*: 13.46%
• 5Y*: 8.09%
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: 0.38%
• 1M: -0.86%
• YTD: 11.74%
• 6M: 11.57%
• 1Y: 19.88%
• 3Y*: 15.97%
• 5Y*: 11.38%
• 10Y*: —

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

BJUN vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BJUN Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June	2.75%	12.57%	16.31%	16.81%	-11.47%	8.49%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.74%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-16.56%	12.87%

Correlation

The correlation between BJUN and QMAR is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.83
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2021	0.85

The correlation between BJUN and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

BJUN vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BJUN	QMAR
Technology	38.4%	58.7%
Financial Services	11.0%	0.2%
Communication Services	10.8%	14.3%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	11.4%
Healthcare	8.4%	3.7%
Industrials	7.9%	2.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	6.4%
Energy	3.2%	0.5%
Utilities	2.1%	1.2%
Real Estate	1.8%	0.1%
Basic Materials	1.7%	1.0%

Return for Risk

BJUN vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BJUN

BJUN Risk / Return Rank: 60
BJUN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
BJUN Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
BJUN Omega Ratio Rank: 61
BJUN Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
BJUN Martin Ratio Rank: 76

QMAR

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

BJUN vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June (BJUN) 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.

	BJUN	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.59	3.07	-1.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.29	4.58	-2.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.71	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.52	6.21	-3.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.64	36.83	-24.19

BJUN vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BJUN Sharpe Ratio is 1.59, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BJUN 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

BJUN vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BJUN drawdown since its inception was -22.71%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BJUN and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BJUN	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.71%	-19.83%	-2.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.36%	-3.21%	-1.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.69%	-15.91%	+3.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.69%	-19.83%	+3.14%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.13%	-1.35%	-0.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.84%	-3.26%	+0.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.87%	0.54%	+0.33%

Volatility

BJUN vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June (BJUN) has a higher volatility of 3.26% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 2.92%. This indicates that BJUN'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

	BJUN	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.26%	2.92%	+0.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.57%	5.60%	-0.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.90%	6.51%	+0.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.96%	14.01%	-3.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.21%	13.82%	-0.61%

BJUN vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BJUN has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

BJUN vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BJUN nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BJUN and QMAR in my portfolio?

BJUN and QMAR have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BJUN or QMAR?

BJUN has higher volatility (3.26%) compared to QMAR (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BJUN dropped -22.71% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, BJUN or QMAR?

On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 11.38% vs 8.09% for BJUN. On fees, BJUN is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BJUN or QMAR?

Over the 5-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 11.38% return vs 8.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BJUN or QMAR?

BJUN is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between BJUN and QMAR?

BJUN is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for BJUN and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.07 vs 1.59), 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.