BUFH vs. QMAR

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

BUFH (FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFH is a Defined Outcome fund managed by First Trust, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Over the past year, BUFH returned 6.24% vs 19.74% for QMAR. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BUFH charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

BUFH vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH) 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, BUFH achieves a 2.88% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 12.77% return.

BUFH

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: 0.56%
• 6M: 2.78%
• YTD: 2.88%
• 1Y: 6.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: 0.39%
• 1M: 0.69%
• 6M: 12.25%
• YTD: 12.77%
• 1Y: 19.74%
• 3Y*: 15.33%
• 5Y*: 11.39%
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFH vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF	2.88%	3.81%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	12.77%	7.61%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFH and QMAR is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2025	0.70

The correlation between BUFH and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BUFH vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFH

BUFH Risk / Return Rank: 93
BUFH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
BUFH Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
BUFH Omega Ratio Rank: 95
BUFH Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
BUFH Martin Ratio Rank: 93

QMAR

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

BUFH vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	BUFH	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.64	2.98	-0.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.14	4.46	-0.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.67	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.09	6.17	-2.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.22	34.50	-15.28

BUFH vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFH Sharpe Ratio is 2.64, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFH 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

BUFH vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFH drawdown since its inception was -1.53%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFH and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFH	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.53%	-19.83%	+18.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.53%	-3.21%	+1.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.91%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.44%	+0.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.17%	-3.24%	+3.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.33%	0.57%	-0.24%

Volatility

BUFH vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH) is 0.54%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 2.52%. This indicates that BUFH 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

	BUFH	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.54%	2.52%	-1.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.96%	5.81%	-3.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.37%	6.65%	-4.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.34%	14.03%	-11.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.34%	13.78%	-11.44%

BUFH vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BUFH vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFH nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFH and QMAR in my portfolio?

BUFH and QMAR have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFH or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (2.52%) compared to BUFH (0.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFH dropped -1.53% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, BUFH or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 19.74% vs 6.24% for BUFH. On fees, QMAR is cheaper at 0.90% per year. On volatility, BUFH has been the lower-risk option at 0.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFH or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 19.74% return vs 6.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFH or QMAR?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between BUFH and QMAR?

BUFH is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BUFH and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.98 vs 2.64), 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.