CBXA vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CBXA (Calamos Bitcoin 90 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - April) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - CBXA is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the CBOE Bitcoin US ETF Index, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. CBXA is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past year, CBXA returned -22.76% vs 20.76% for QMAR. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CBXA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

CBXA vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Bitcoin 90 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CBXA) 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, CBXA achieves a -21.17% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.40% return.

CBXA

• 1D: -1.11%
• 1M: -5.76%
• YTD: -21.17%
• 6M: -21.33%
• 1Y: -22.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -1.06%
• 1M: -0.77%
• YTD: 11.40%
• 6M: 11.38%
• 1Y: 20.76%
• 3Y*: 15.65%
• 5Y*: 11.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

CBXA vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CBXA Calamos Bitcoin 90 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - April	-21.17%	9.67%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.40%	25.15%

Correlation

The correlation between CBXA and QMAR is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 7, 2025	0.46

Return for Risk

CBXA vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CBXA

CBXA Risk / Return Rank: 1
CBXA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
CBXA Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
CBXA Omega Ratio Rank: 1
CBXA Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
CBXA Martin Ratio Rank: 1

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
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.

CBXA vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Bitcoin 90 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CBXA) 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.

	CBXA	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.26	3.19	-4.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.72	4.77	-6.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.79	1.74	-0.96
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.79	6.49	-7.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.48	39.78	-41.26

CBXA vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CBXA Sharpe Ratio is -1.26, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CBXA 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

CBXA vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBXA drawdown since its inception was -28.98%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBXA and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CBXA	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.98%	-19.83%	-9.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-28.98%	-3.21%	-25.77%
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	-28.23%	-1.65%	-26.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.48%	-3.26%	-6.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	15.43%	0.52%	+14.91%

Volatility

CBXA vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

Calamos Bitcoin 90 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CBXA) has a higher volatility of 4.12% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 2.92%. This indicates that CBXA'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

	CBXA	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.12%	2.92%	+1.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.95%	5.59%	+9.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.12%	6.55%	+11.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.01%	14.01%	+3.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.01%	13.83%	+3.18%

CBXA vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

CBXA vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

CBXA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.50%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
CBXA Calamos Bitcoin 90 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - April	2.50%	1.97%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CBXA and QMAR in my portfolio?

CBXA and QMAR have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CBXA or QMAR?

CBXA has higher volatility (4.12%) compared to QMAR (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CBXA dropped -28.98% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, CBXA or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 20.76% vs -22.76% for CBXA. On fees, CBXA is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CBXA or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 20.76% return vs -22.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CBXA or QMAR?

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

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

CBXA has the higher dividend yield at 2.50%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between CBXA and QMAR?

CBXA 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 CBXA and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs -1.26), 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.