PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
BOCT vs. QMAR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

BOCT vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF October (BOCT) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BOCT achieves a 7.17% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.


BOCT

1D
-0.15%
1M
2.95%
YTD
7.17%
6M
7.69%
1Y
20.28%
3Y*
14.58%
5Y*
10.56%
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)

BOCT vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
BOCT
Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF October
7.17%14.34%12.36%21.13%-8.14%11.58%
QMAR
FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March
13.06%10.89%16.11%35.47%-16.56%12.31%

Correlation

The correlation between BOCT and QMAR is 0.87, 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

0.87

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.82

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.86

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2021

0.86

The correlation between BOCT and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

BOCT vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
BOCT
QMAR

Technology

36.2%
54.2%

Financial Services

11.9%
0.2%

Communication Services

10.9%
15.5%

Consumer Cyclical

10.1%
12.2%

Healthcare

8.4%
4.2%

Industrials

8.1%
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

4.9%
7.6%

Energy

3.5%
0.6%

Utilities

2.3%
1.4%

Real Estate

1.9%
0.1%

Basic Materials

1.8%
1.2%

Technology

BOCT
36.2%
QMAR
54.2%

Financial Services

BOCT
11.9%
QMAR
0.2%

Communication Services

BOCT
10.9%
QMAR
15.5%

Consumer Cyclical

BOCT
10.1%
QMAR
12.2%

Healthcare

BOCT
8.4%
QMAR
4.2%

Industrials

BOCT
8.1%
QMAR
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

BOCT
4.9%
QMAR
7.6%

Energy

BOCT
3.5%
QMAR
0.6%

Utilities

BOCT
2.3%
QMAR
1.4%

Real Estate

BOCT
1.9%
QMAR
0.1%

Basic Materials

BOCT
1.8%
QMAR
1.2%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

BOCT vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BOCT
BOCT Risk / Return Rank: 7777
Overall Rank
BOCT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7777
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BOCT Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
BOCT Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
BOCT Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
BOCT Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
Martin Ratio Rank

QMAR
QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 9696
Overall Rank
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9595
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 9797
Sortino Ratio Rank
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 9797
Omega Ratio Rank
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 9797
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

BOCT vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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


BOCTQMARDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.37

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.55

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.48

1.93

-0.45

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.34

7.31

-3.96

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

16.08

52.66

-36.58

BOCT vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BOCT Sharpe Ratio is 2.49, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BOCT 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


BOCTQMARDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.49

3.86

-1.37

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.96

0.87

+0.08

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.77

0.91

-0.14

Drawdowns

BOCT vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BOCT drawdown since its inception was -24.54%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BOCT and QMAR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


BOCTQMARDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-24.54%

-19.83%

-4.71%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.09%

-3.21%

-2.88%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.61%

-15.91%

+2.30%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-14.29%

-19.83%

+5.54%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.15%

-0.19%

+0.04%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.60%

-3.28%

+0.68%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.26%

0.45%

+0.81%

Volatility

BOCT vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF October (BOCT) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) have volatilities of 1.33% and 1.27%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


BOCTQMARDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.33%

1.27%

+0.06%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.11%

4.85%

+1.26%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.18%

6.09%

+2.09%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.09%

13.97%

-2.88%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.82%

13.85%

-0.03%

BOCT vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

BOCT vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BOCT nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
BOCT
Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF October
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.20%
QMAR
FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


BOCT and QMAR have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BOCT has higher volatility (1.33%) compared to QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BOCT dropped -24.54% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 12.13% vs 10.56% for BOCT. On fees, BOCT is cheaper at 0.79% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 12.13% return vs 10.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

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

BOCT 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 BOCT and 0.90% for QMAR.

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 2.49), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BOCT and QMAR

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer