BUFH vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 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. A 0.68 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 2.45% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

BUFH

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 0.75%
• YTD: 2.45%
• 6M: 2.82%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 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)

BUFH vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF	2.45%	3.89%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	7.29%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFH and QMAR is 0.68, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025	0.68

Return for Risk

BUFH vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

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.

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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BUFH	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	3.86	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.91	0.91	+2.00

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	—	-3.21%	—
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	-0.05%	-0.19%	+0.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.18%	-3.28%	+3.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.45%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BUFH	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	1.27%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	4.85%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.37%	6.09%	-3.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.37%	13.97%	-11.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.37%	13.85%	-11.48%

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 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BUFH or QMAR?

On fees, QMAR is cheaper at 0.90% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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.