CPRO vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CPRO (Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - October) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - CPRO is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Calamos, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CPRO returned 13.53% vs 22.68% for QMAR. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CPRO charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

CPRO vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - October (CPRO) 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, CPRO achieves a 4.39% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 12.60% return.

CPRO

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: 0.95%
• YTD: 4.39%
• 6M: 4.04%
• 1Y: 13.53%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 0.30%
• YTD: 12.60%
• 6M: 12.67%
• 1Y: 22.68%
• 3Y*: 16.06%
• 5Y*: 11.66%
• 10Y*: —

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

CPRO vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CPRO Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - October	4.39%	8.34%	0.22%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	12.60%	10.89%	3.94%

Correlation

The correlation between CPRO and QMAR is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2024	0.59

The correlation between CPRO and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CPRO vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CPRO

CPRO Risk / Return Rank: 94
CPRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
CPRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
CPRO Omega Ratio Rank: 94
CPRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
CPRO Martin Ratio Rank: 95

QMAR

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

CPRO vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - October (CPRO) 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.

	CPRO	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.03	3.53	-0.50
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.55	5.35	+0.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.67	1.84	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.68	7.09	+0.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	28.45	44.33	-15.88

CPRO vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CPRO Sharpe Ratio is 3.03, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CPRO 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

CPRO vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPRO drawdown since its inception was -3.36%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPRO and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPRO	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.36%	-19.83%	+16.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.77%	-3.21%	+1.44%
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	0.00%	-0.59%	+0.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.69%	-3.26%	+2.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.48%	0.51%	-0.03%

Volatility

CPRO vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - October (CPRO) is 0.77%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 2.72%. This indicates that CPRO 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

	CPRO	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.77%	2.72%	-1.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.12%	5.48%	-3.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.49%	6.46%	-1.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.13%	14.01%	-9.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.13%	13.83%	-9.70%

CPRO vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

CPRO vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither CPRO nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPRO and QMAR in my portfolio?

CPRO and QMAR have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CPRO or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (2.72%) compared to CPRO (0.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CPRO dropped -3.36% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, CPRO or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 22.68% vs 13.53% for CPRO. On fees, CPRO is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, CPRO has been the lower-risk option at 0.77%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CPRO or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 22.68% return vs 13.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CPRO or QMAR?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between CPRO and QMAR?

CPRO 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 CPRO and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.53 vs 3.03), 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.