BMAR vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BMAR (Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - BMAR 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. BMAR is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, BMAR returned 11.75%/yr vs 11.30%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

BMAR vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (BMAR) 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, BMAR achieves a 7.56% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.40% return.

BMAR

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: -0.19%
• YTD: 7.56%
• 6M: 7.37%
• 1Y: 18.74%
• 3Y*: 16.11%
• 5Y*: 11.75%
• 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)

BMAR vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BMAR Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March	7.56%	14.97%	16.49%	23.09%	-7.06%	13.07%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.40%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-16.56%	12.87%

Correlation

The correlation between BMAR and QMAR is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2021	0.89

The correlation between BMAR and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

BMAR vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BMAR	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

BMAR vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BMAR

BMAR Risk / Return Rank: 83
BMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
BMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
BMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 87
BMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
BMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

BMAR vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	BMAR	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.48	3.19	-0.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.56	4.77	-1.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.74	-0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.34	6.49	-3.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.16	39.78	-21.62

BMAR vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BMAR Sharpe Ratio is 2.48, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BMAR 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

BMAR vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BMAR drawdown since its inception was -21.43%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BMAR and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BMAR	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.43%	-19.83%	-1.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.64%	-3.21%	-2.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.86%	-15.91%	+3.05%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-15.02%	-19.83%	+4.81%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.23%	-1.65%	+0.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.33%	-3.26%	+0.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.03%	0.52%	+0.51%

Volatility

BMAR vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (BMAR) is 2.46%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 2.92%. This indicates that BMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BMAR	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.46%	2.92%	-0.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.27%	5.59%	+0.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.60%	6.55%	+1.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.35%	14.01%	-2.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.65%	13.83%	-0.18%

BMAR vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BMAR vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BMAR nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BMAR and QMAR in my portfolio?

BMAR and QMAR have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BMAR or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (2.92%) compared to BMAR (2.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BMAR dropped -21.43% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, BMAR or QMAR?

On 5-year performance, BMAR leads with 11.75% vs 11.30% for QMAR. On fees, BMAR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, BMAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BMAR or QMAR?

Over the 5-year period, BMAR has performed better with a 11.75% return vs 11.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BMAR or QMAR?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between BMAR and QMAR?

BMAR 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 BMAR and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs 2.48), 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.