BLCR vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BLCR (Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - BLCR is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by BlackRock, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BLCR returned 47.09% vs 23.38% for QMAR. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BLCR charges 0.36%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

BLCR vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF (BLCR) 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, BLCR achieves a 19.56% return, which is significantly higher than QMAR's 13.06% return.

BLCR

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: 6.16%
• YTD: 19.56%
• 6M: 21.53%
• 1Y: 47.09%
• 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)

BLCR vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BLCR Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF	19.56%	30.93%	17.07%	14.18%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	10.89%	16.11%	8.65%

Correlation

The correlation between BLCR and QMAR is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2023	0.80

The correlation between BLCR and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

BLCR vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BLCR	QMAR
Technology	35.7%	54.2%
Industrials	13.5%	2.8%
Financial Services	12.1%	0.2%
Communication Services	11.0%	15.5%
Consumer Cyclical	10.9%	12.2%
Healthcare	7.6%	4.2%
Basic Materials	2.2%	1.2%
Energy	2.2%	0.6%
Utilities	1.6%	1.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.6%
Real Estate	-	0.1%

Return for Risk

BLCR vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BLCR

BLCR Risk / Return Rank: 87
BLCR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
BLCR Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
BLCR Omega Ratio Rank: 85
BLCR Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
BLCR Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

BLCR vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF (BLCR) 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.

	BLCR	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.05	3.86	-0.82
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.02	6.05	-2.03
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.93	-0.41
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.61	7.31	-2.69
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	21.86	52.66	-30.79
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BLCR vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BLCR Sharpe Ratio is 3.05, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BLCR 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BLCR	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.05	3.86	-0.82
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.90	0.91	+0.99

Drawdowns

BLCR vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BLCR drawdown since its inception was -21.29%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BLCR and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BLCR	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.29%	-19.83%	-1.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.26%	-3.21%	-7.05%
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	-0.37%	-0.19%	-0.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.19%	-3.28%	+1.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.16%	0.45%	+1.71%

Volatility

BLCR vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF (BLCR) has a higher volatility of 4.45% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 1.27%. This indicates that BLCR'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

	BLCR	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.45%	1.27%	+3.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.24%	4.85%	+7.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.54%	6.09%	+9.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.47%	13.97%	+3.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.47%	13.85%	+3.62%

BLCR vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BLCR has a 0.36% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

BLCR vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

BLCR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.23%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BLCR Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF	0.23%	0.33%	0.75%	0.13%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BLCR and QMAR in my portfolio?

BLCR and QMAR have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BLCR or QMAR?

BLCR has higher volatility (4.45%) compared to QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BLCR dropped -21.29% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, BLCR or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, BLCR leads with 47.09% vs 23.38% for QMAR. On fees, BLCR is cheaper at 0.36% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 1.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BLCR or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, BLCR has performed better with a 47.09% return vs 23.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BLCR or QMAR?

BLCR is cheaper with a 0.36% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

BLCR has the higher dividend yield at 0.23%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between BLCR and QMAR?

BLCR is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: BlackRock and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.36% for BLCR and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 3.05), 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.