BUFD vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BUFD (FT Vest Laddered Deep Buffer ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFD is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by FT Vest, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, BUFD returned 7.32%/yr vs 11.30%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BUFD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

BUFD vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Laddered Deep Buffer ETF (BUFD) 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, BUFD achieves a 4.55% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.40% return.

BUFD

• 1D: -0.49%
• 1M: -0.08%
• YTD: 4.55%
• 6M: 4.29%
• 1Y: 13.12%
• 3Y*: 11.59%
• 5Y*: 7.32%
• 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)

BUFD vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BUFD FT Vest Laddered Deep Buffer ETF	4.55%	10.66%	12.42%	15.40%	-7.70%	5.35%
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 BUFD and QMAR is 0.84, 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	0.84
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.79
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2021	0.80

The correlation between BUFD and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BUFD vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFD

BUFD Risk / Return Rank: 86
BUFD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
BUFD Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
BUFD Omega Ratio Rank: 88
BUFD Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
BUFD Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

BUFD vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Laddered Deep Buffer ETF (BUFD) 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.

	BUFD	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.51	3.19	-0.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.81	4.77	-0.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.74	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.84	6.49	-2.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.61	39.78	-19.17

BUFD vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFD Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFD 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

BUFD vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFD drawdown since its inception was -10.75%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFD and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFD	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.75%	-19.83%	+9.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.43%	-3.21%	-0.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.15%	-15.91%	+5.76%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-10.75%	-19.83%	+9.08%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.72%	-1.65%	+0.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.95%	-3.26%	+1.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.64%	0.52%	+0.12%

Volatility

BUFD vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Laddered Deep Buffer ETF (BUFD) is 1.67%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 2.92%. This indicates that BUFD 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

	BUFD	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.67%	2.92%	-1.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.18%	5.59%	-1.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.29%	6.55%	-1.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.75%	14.01%	-6.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.54%	13.83%	-6.29%

BUFD vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFD vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFD nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFD and QMAR in my portfolio?

BUFD and QMAR have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFD or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (2.92%) compared to BUFD (1.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFD dropped -10.75% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, BUFD or QMAR?

On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 11.30% vs 7.32% for BUFD. On fees, QMAR is cheaper at 0.90% per year. On volatility, BUFD has been the lower-risk option at 1.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFD or QMAR?

Over the 5-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 11.30% return vs 7.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFD or QMAR?

QMAR is cheaper with a 0.90% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFD.

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

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

What is the main difference between BUFD and QMAR?

BUFD is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BUFD and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs 2.51), 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.