CANQ vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CANQ (Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CANQ returned 17.89% vs 23.38% for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.90% expense ratio.

Performance

CANQ vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF (CANQ) 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, CANQ achieves a 7.60% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

CANQ

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 5.62%
• YTD: 7.60%
• 6M: 5.52%
• 1Y: 17.89%
• 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)

CANQ vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CANQ Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF	7.60%	11.69%	19.48%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	10.89%	14.99%

Correlation

The correlation between CANQ and QMAR is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 14, 2024	0.83

The correlation between CANQ and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

CANQ vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CANQ	QMAR
Financial Services	82.1%	0.2%
Basic Materials	-	1.2%
Communication Services	-	15.5%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.6%
Energy	-	0.6%
Healthcare	-	4.2%
Industrials	-	2.8%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Technology	-	54.2%
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

CANQ vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CANQ

CANQ Risk / Return Rank: 42
CANQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
CANQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
CANQ Omega Ratio Rank: 47
CANQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
CANQ Martin Ratio Rank: 34

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.

CANQ vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF (CANQ) 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.

	CANQ	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.67	3.86	-2.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.37	6.05	-3.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.93	-0.64
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.67	7.31	-5.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.17	52.66	-47.48
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CANQ vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CANQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CANQ 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

	CANQ	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.67	3.86	-2.19
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.35	0.91	+0.44

Drawdowns

CANQ vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CANQ drawdown since its inception was -12.79%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CANQ and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CANQ	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.79%	-19.83%	+7.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.77%	-3.21%	-7.56%
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	-0.37%	-0.19%	-0.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.95%	-3.28%	+0.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.47%	0.45%	+3.02%

Volatility

CANQ vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF (CANQ) has a higher volatility of 3.86% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 1.27%. This indicates that CANQ'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

	CANQ	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.86%	1.27%	+2.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.52%	4.85%	+2.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.76%	6.09%	+4.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.69%	13.97%	-1.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.69%	13.85%	-1.16%

CANQ vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CANQ and QMAR have an expense ratio of 0.90%.

Dividends

CANQ vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

CANQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.36%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CANQ Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF	4.36%	5.02%	4.19%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CANQ and QMAR in my portfolio?

CANQ and QMAR have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CANQ or QMAR?

CANQ has higher volatility (3.86%) compared to QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CANQ dropped -12.79% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, CANQ or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 23.38% vs 17.89% for CANQ. Both ETFs have the same 0.90% expense ratio. 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, CANQ or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 23.38% return vs 17.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CANQ or QMAR?

CANQ and QMAR have the same expense ratio: 0.90% per year.

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

CANQ has the higher dividend yield at 4.36%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between CANQ and QMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Calamos and First Trust.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 1.67), 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.