BUFS vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BUFS (FT Vest Laddered Small Cap Moderate Buffer ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFS is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BUFS returned 18.99% vs 23.38% for QMAR. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BUFS charges 1.01%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

BUFS vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Laddered Small Cap Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFS) 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, BUFS achieves a 7.57% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

BUFS

• 1D: -0.53%
• 1M: 1.49%
• YTD: 7.57%
• 6M: 7.95%
• 1Y: 18.99%
• 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)

BUFS vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BUFS FT Vest Laddered Small Cap Moderate Buffer ETF	7.57%	7.08%	6.83%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	10.89%	10.22%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFS and QMAR is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 31, 2024	0.66

The correlation between BUFS and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BUFS vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFS

BUFS Risk / Return Rank: 72
BUFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
BUFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
BUFS Omega Ratio Rank: 65
BUFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
BUFS Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

BUFS vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Laddered Small Cap Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFS) 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.

	BUFS	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.13	3.86	-1.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.10	6.05	-2.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.93	-0.54
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.07	7.31	-3.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.32	52.66	-36.34
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUFS vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFS Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFS 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

	BUFS	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.13	3.86	-1.73
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.98	0.91	+0.07

Drawdowns

BUFS vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFS drawdown since its inception was -15.03%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFS and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFS	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.03%	-19.83%	+4.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.68%	-3.21%	-1.47%
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	-0.61%	-0.19%	-0.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.42%	-3.28%	+0.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.17%	0.45%	+0.72%

Volatility

BUFS vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Laddered Small Cap Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFS) has a higher volatility of 1.83% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 1.27%. This indicates that BUFS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFS	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.83%	1.27%	+0.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.45%	4.85%	+0.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.99%	6.09%	+2.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.21%	13.97%	-2.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.21%	13.85%	-2.64%

BUFS vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFS has a 1.01% expense ratio, which is higher than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFS vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFS nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFS and QMAR in my portfolio?

BUFS and QMAR have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFS or QMAR?

BUFS has higher volatility (1.83%) compared to QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFS dropped -15.03% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, BUFS or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 23.38% vs 18.99% for BUFS. On fees, QMAR is cheaper at 0.90% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 1.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFS or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 23.38% return vs 18.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFS or QMAR?

QMAR is cheaper with a 0.90% expense ratio, compared with 1.01% for BUFS.

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

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

What is the main difference between BUFS and QMAR?

BUFS is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. Their fees differ too: 1.01% for BUFS and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 2.13), 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.