BUFF vs. QMAR
BUFF (Innovator Laddered Allocation Power Buffer ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFF is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the Refinitiv Laddered Power Buffer Strategy Index, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. BUFF is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, BUFF returned 8.52%/yr vs 11.30%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BUFF charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.
Performance
BUFF vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BUFF achieves a 4.91% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.40% return.
BUFF
- 1D
- -0.48%
- 1M
- -0.10%
- YTD
- 4.91%
- 6M
- 4.62%
- 1Y
- 13.10%
- 3Y*
- 11.92%
- 5Y*
- 8.52%
- 10Y*
- —
QMAR
- 1D
- -1.06%
- 1M
- -0.77%
- YTD
- 11.40%
- 6M
- 11.38%
- 1Y
- 20.76%
- 3Y*
- 15.65%
- 5Y*
- 11.30%
- 10Y*
- —
BUFF vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BUFF Innovator Laddered Allocation Power Buffer ETF | 4.91% | 11.02% | 12.05% | 16.51% | -4.44% | 6.35% |
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 BUFF and QMAR is 0.80, 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 | 0.80 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.80 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.85 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2021 | 0.84 |
The correlation between BUFF and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
BUFF vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank
BUFF
QMAR
BUFF vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Laddered Allocation Power Buffer ETF (BUFF) 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.
| BUFF | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.68 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.01 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.51 | 1.74 | -0.23 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.67 | 6.49 | -2.82 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 19.13 | 39.78 | -20.65 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BUFF vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BUFF drawdown since its inception was -46.23%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFF and QMAR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BUFF | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -46.23% | -19.83% | -26.40% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.58% | -3.21% | -0.37% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -10.24% | -15.91% | +5.67% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -10.24% | -19.83% | +9.59% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.74% | -1.65% | +0.91% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.15% | -3.26% | -2.89% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.69% | 0.52% | +0.17% |
Volatility
BUFF vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Innovator Laddered Allocation Power Buffer ETF (BUFF) is 1.73%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 2.92%. This indicates that BUFF 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BUFF | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.73% | 2.92% | -1.19% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.11% | 5.59% | -1.48% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.27% | 6.55% | -1.28% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.44% | 14.01% | -5.57% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.63% | 13.83% | +3.80% |
BUFF vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison
BUFF has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.
Dividends
BUFF vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison
Neither BUFF nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BUFF Innovator Laddered Allocation Power Buffer ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 1.78% | 1.26% | 1.74% | 1.55% | 0.18% |
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% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BUFF and QMAR have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
QMAR has higher volatility (2.92%) compared to BUFF (1.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFF dropped -46.23% vs QMAR's -19.83%.
On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 11.30% vs 8.52% for BUFF. On fees, BUFF is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, BUFF has been the lower-risk option at 1.73%. 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 11.30% return vs 8.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BUFF is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.
BUFF and QMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
BUFF 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 BUFF and 0.90% for QMAR.
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.
Find the right allocation for BUFF 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