BTR vs. QMAR

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

BTR (Beacon Tactical Risk ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - BTR is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by American Beacon, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BTR returned 4.17%/yr vs 14.85%/yr for QMAR. Their 0.55 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. BTR charges 1.10%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

BTR vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Beacon Tactical Risk ETF (BTR) 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, BTR achieves a 9.64% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.91% return.

BTR

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: -0.14%
• 6M: 5.82%
• YTD: 9.64%
• 1Y: 17.44%
• 3Y*: 4.17%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.20%

QMAR

• 1D: 0.47%
• 1M: 0.04%
• 6M: 11.24%
• YTD: 11.91%
• 1Y: 18.52%
• 3Y*: 14.85%
• 5Y*: 11.10%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.03%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BTR Beacon Tactical Risk ETF	$78.21K	$71.52K	$93.67K
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	$319.00K	$316.44K	$452.98K

BTR vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BTR Beacon Tactical Risk ETF	9.64%	-2.15%	14.45%	-6.78%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.91%	10.89%	16.11%	15.66%

Correlation

The correlation between BTR and QMAR is 0.59, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.59
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 18, 2023	0.55

The correlation between BTR and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

BTR vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BTR	QMAR
Technology	12.3%	60.2%
Energy	10.0%	0.5%
Industrials	9.5%	2.7%
Healthcare	9.5%	3.6%
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	10.9%
Utilities	8.7%	1.2%
Communication Services	8.6%	13.3%
Real Estate	8.4%	0.1%
Basic Materials	8.2%	1.0%
Consumer Defensive	7.9%	6.5%
Financial Services	7.5%	0.2%

Return for Risk

BTR vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BTR

BTR Risk / Return Rank: 74
BTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
BTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
BTR Omega Ratio Rank: 72
BTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
BTR Martin Ratio Rank: 79

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 96

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BTR vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Beacon Tactical Risk ETF (BTR) 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.

	BTR	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	2.55	-0.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.33	3.83	-1.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.55	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.61	5.54	-2.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.17	26.00	-15.83

BTR vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BTR Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BTR 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

BTR vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BTR drawdown since its inception was -16.67%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BTR and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BTR	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.67%	-19.83%	+3.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.23%	-3.21%	-3.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.67%	-15.91%	-0.76%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.67%	-1.20%	+0.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.34%	-3.22%	-2.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.60%	0.68%	+0.92%

Volatility

BTR vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Beacon Tactical Risk ETF (BTR) is 2.20%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 2.60%. This indicates that BTR 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

	BTR	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.20%	2.60%	-0.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.15%	6.16%	+0.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.86%	6.99%	+2.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.80%	14.04%	-3.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.80%	13.75%	-2.95%

BTR vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BTR has a 1.10% expense ratio, which is higher than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

BTR vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

BTR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.17%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BTR Beacon Tactical Risk ETF	1.17%	1.29%	0.87%	0.91%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BTR and QMAR in my portfolio?

BTR and QMAR have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BTR or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (2.60%) compared to BTR (2.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BTR dropped -16.67% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, BTR or QMAR?

On 3-year performance, QMAR leads with 14.85% vs 4.17% for BTR. On fees, QMAR is cheaper at 0.90% per year. On volatility, BTR has been the lower-risk option at 2.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BTR or QMAR?

Over the 3-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 14.85% return vs 4.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BTR or QMAR?

QMAR is cheaper with a 0.90% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for BTR.

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

BTR has the higher dividend yield at 1.17%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between BTR and QMAR?

BTR is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: American Beacon and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 1.10% for BTR and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 1.66), 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.