CBOA vs. QMAR

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

CBOA (Calamos Bitcoin Structured Alt Protection ETF - April) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - CBOA is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the CBOE Bitcoin US ETF Index, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. CBOA is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past year, CBOA returned -6.50% vs 18.74% for QMAR. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CBOA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

CBOA vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Bitcoin Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CBOA) 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, CBOA achieves a -6.06% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 12.12% return.

CBOA

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: -0.02%
• 6M: -7.67%
• YTD: -6.06%
• 1Y: -6.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: -0.30%
• 6M: 11.75%
• YTD: 12.12%
• 1Y: 18.74%
• 3Y*: 14.99%
• 5Y*: 11.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

CBOA vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CBOA Calamos Bitcoin Structured Alt Protection ETF - April	-6.06%	5.22%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	12.12%	25.15%

Correlation

The correlation between CBOA and QMAR is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 7, 2025	0.42

Return for Risk

CBOA vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CBOA

CBOA Risk / Return Rank: 2
CBOA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
CBOA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
CBOA Omega Ratio Rank: 1
CBOA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
CBOA Martin Ratio Rank: 2

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 95
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.

CBOA vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Bitcoin Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CBOA) 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.

	CBOA	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.19	2.82	-4.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.53	4.22	-5.75
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.80	1.63	-0.83
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.73	5.86	-6.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.32	32.52	-33.84

CBOA vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CBOA Sharpe Ratio is -1.19, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CBOA 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

CBOA vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBOA drawdown since its inception was -8.92%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBOA and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CBOA	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.92%	-19.83%	+10.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.92%	-3.21%	-5.71%
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	-7.91%	-1.02%	-6.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.90%	-3.23%	+0.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.93%	0.58%	+4.35%

Volatility

CBOA vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos Bitcoin Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CBOA) is 1.16%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 2.36%. This indicates that CBOA 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

	CBOA	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.16%	2.36%	-1.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.45%	5.84%	-1.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.47%	6.67%	-1.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.07%	14.03%	-8.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.07%	13.77%	-8.70%

CBOA vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CBOA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

CBOA vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

CBOA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.38%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
CBOA Calamos Bitcoin Structured Alt Protection ETF - April	2.38%	2.24%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CBOA and QMAR in my portfolio?

CBOA and QMAR have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CBOA or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (2.36%) compared to CBOA (1.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CBOA dropped -8.92% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, CBOA or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 18.74% vs -6.50% for CBOA. On fees, CBOA is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, CBOA has been the lower-risk option at 1.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CBOA or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 18.74% return vs -6.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CBOA or QMAR?

CBOA is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

CBOA has the higher dividend yield at 2.38%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between CBOA and QMAR?

CBOA is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Calamos and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CBOA and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.82 vs -1.19), 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.