CAOS vs. GMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) and GMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CAOS returned 4.26%/yr vs 12.24%/yr for GMAR. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CAOS charges 0.63%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for GMAR.

Performance

CAOS vs. GMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CAOS achieves a 0.82% return, which is significantly lower than GMAR's 7.89% return.

CAOS

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: -0.09%
• YTD: 0.82%
• 6M: 0.69%
• 1Y: 1.88%
• 3Y*: 4.26%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GMAR

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 1.52%
• YTD: 7.89%
• 6M: 8.66%
• 1Y: 15.30%
• 3Y*: 12.24%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CAOS vs. GMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.82%	2.55%	5.33%	9.73%
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March	7.89%	9.29%	12.14%	11.95%

Correlation

The correlation between CAOS and GMAR is -0.35, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.35
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2023	0.08

The correlation between CAOS and GMAR shifts across timeframes, from -0.35 (1 year) to 0.08 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CAOS vs. GMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CAOS	GMAR
Technology	33.1%	36.2%
Financial Services	12.4%	11.9%
Communication Services	10.4%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	10.1%
Healthcare	9.6%	8.4%
Industrials	8.5%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	5.4%	4.9%
Energy	4.1%	3.5%
Utilities	2.6%	2.3%
Real Estate	2.0%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.9%	1.8%

Return for Risk

CAOS vs. GMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CAOS

CAOS Risk / Return Rank: 40
CAOS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
CAOS Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
CAOS Omega Ratio Rank: 39
CAOS Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
CAOS Martin Ratio Rank: 39

GMAR

GMAR Risk / Return Rank: 97
GMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
GMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
GMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 98
GMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
GMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

CAOS vs. GMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR). 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.

	CAOS	GMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.24	3.94	-2.70
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.98	6.60	-4.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	2.02	-0.76
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.49	8.56	-6.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.22	59.52	-53.30
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CAOS vs. GMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CAOS Sharpe Ratio is 1.24, which is lower than the GMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CAOS and GMAR, 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

	CAOS	GMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.24	3.94	-2.70
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.21	1.91	-0.70

Drawdowns

CAOS vs. GMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CAOS drawdown since its inception was -3.60%, smaller than the maximum GMAR drawdown of -9.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CAOS and GMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CAOS	GMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.60%	-9.11%	+5.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.76%	-1.79%	+1.03%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.60%	-9.11%	+5.51%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.07%	-0.10%	-0.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.90%	-0.54%	-0.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.30%	0.26%	+0.04%

Volatility

CAOS vs. GMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) is 0.26%, while FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) has a volatility of 0.69%. This indicates that CAOS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CAOS	GMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.26%	0.69%	-0.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.03%	2.99%	-1.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.52%	3.90%	-2.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.26%	6.84%	-2.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.26%	6.84%	-2.58%

CAOS vs. GMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CAOS has a 0.63% expense ratio, which is lower than GMAR's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

CAOS vs. GMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither CAOS nor GMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CAOS and GMAR in my portfolio?

CAOS and GMAR have a correlation of -0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CAOS or GMAR?

GMAR has higher volatility (0.69%) compared to CAOS (0.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CAOS dropped -3.60% vs GMAR's -9.11%.

Which ETF is better, CAOS or GMAR?

On 3-year performance, GMAR leads with 12.24% vs 4.26% for CAOS. On fees, CAOS is cheaper at 0.63% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CAOS or GMAR?

Over the 3-year period, GMAR has performed better with a 12.24% return vs 4.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CAOS or GMAR?

CAOS is cheaper with a 0.63% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for GMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CAOS or GMAR?

CAOS and GMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between CAOS and GMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Alpha Architect and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.63% for CAOS and 0.85% for GMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.94 vs 1.24), 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.