BUFB vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BUFB (Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFB is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the MerQube U.S. Large Cap Equity Buffer Laddered Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. BUFB is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BUFB returned 15.74%/yr vs 16.73%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BUFB charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

BUFB vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF (BUFB) 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, BUFB achieves a 7.03% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

BUFB

• 1D: -0.31%
• 1M: 2.46%
• YTD: 7.03%
• 6M: 7.78%
• 1Y: 19.07%
• 3Y*: 15.74%
• 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)

BUFB vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BUFB Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF	7.03%	13.42%	16.37%	20.50%	-8.37%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-15.99%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFB and QMAR is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 10, 2022	0.87

The correlation between BUFB and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

BUFB vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BUFB	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%

Return for Risk

BUFB vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFB

BUFB Risk / Return Rank: 81
BUFB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
BUFB Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
BUFB Omega Ratio Rank: 84
BUFB Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
BUFB Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

BUFB vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF (BUFB) 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.

	BUFB	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.55	3.86	-1.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.70	6.05	-2.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.93	-0.43
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.74	7.31	-3.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.82	52.66	-32.84
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUFB vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFB Sharpe Ratio is 2.55, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFB 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

	BUFB	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.55	3.86	-1.31
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.91	0.91	0.00

Drawdowns

BUFB vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFB drawdown since its inception was -14.88%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFB and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFB	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.88%	-19.83%	+4.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.12%	-3.21%	-1.91%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.75%	-15.91%	+2.16%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.31%	-0.19%	-0.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.88%	-3.28%	+0.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.96%	0.45%	+0.51%

Volatility

BUFB vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF (BUFB) 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.

Volatility by Period

	BUFB	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.33%	1.27%	+0.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.76%	4.85%	+0.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.51%	6.09%	+1.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.01%	13.97%	-1.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.01%	13.85%	-1.84%

BUFB vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFB has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFB vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFB nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFB and QMAR in my portfolio?

BUFB and QMAR have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFB or QMAR?

BUFB has higher volatility (1.33%) compared to QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFB dropped -14.88% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, BUFB or QMAR?

On 3-year performance, QMAR leads with 16.73% vs 15.74% for BUFB. On fees, BUFB is cheaper at 0.89% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFB or QMAR?

Over the 3-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 16.73% return vs 15.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFB or QMAR?

BUFB is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between BUFB and QMAR?

BUFB is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for BUFB and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 2.55), 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.