DAUG vs. QMAR
DAUG (FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - August) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - DAUG is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the S&P 500, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. DAUG is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, DAUG returned 6.42%/yr vs 12.38%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. DAUG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.
Performance
DAUG vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, DAUG achieves a 5.29% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.16% return.
DAUG
- 1D
- 0.12%
- 1M
- 1.73%
- YTD
- 5.29%
- 6M
- 5.95%
- 1Y
- 15.63%
- 3Y*
- 12.37%
- 5Y*
- 6.42%
- 10Y*
- —
QMAR
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- 2.78%
- YTD
- 13.16%
- 6M
- 14.21%
- 1Y
- 23.95%
- 3Y*
- 16.76%
- 5Y*
- 12.38%
- 10Y*
- —
DAUG vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DAUG FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - August | 5.29% | 11.75% | 12.00% | 13.85% | -11.95% | 4.99% |
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 13.16% | 10.89% | 16.11% | 35.47% | -16.56% | 12.31% |
Correlation
The correlation between DAUG and QMAR is 0.87, 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 | 0.87 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.81 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.84 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2021 | 0.83 |
The correlation between DAUG and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.
DAUG vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
DAUG
QMAR
Technology
Financial Services
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Industrials
Consumer Defensive
Energy
Utilities
Real Estate
Basic Materials
Technology
DAUG
QMAR
Financial Services
DAUG
QMAR
Communication Services
DAUG
QMAR
Consumer Cyclical
DAUG
QMAR
Healthcare
DAUG
QMAR
Industrials
DAUG
QMAR
Consumer Defensive
DAUG
QMAR
Energy
DAUG
QMAR
Utilities
DAUG
QMAR
Real Estate
DAUG
QMAR
Basic Materials
DAUG
QMAR
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
DAUG vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank
DAUG
QMAR
DAUG vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - August (DAUG) 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.
| DAUG | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.77 | 3.95 | -1.19 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 4.05 | 6.18 | -2.13 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.57 | 1.96 | -0.39 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.65 | 7.61 | -3.96 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 19.34 | 54.94 | -35.59 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| DAUG | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.77 | 3.95 | -1.19 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.80 | 0.89 | -0.09 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.75 | 0.91 | -0.17 |
Drawdowns
DAUG vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum DAUG drawdown since its inception was -15.34%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DAUG and QMAR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| DAUG | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -15.34% | -19.83% | +4.49% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.37% | -3.21% | -1.16% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -10.53% | -15.91% | +5.38% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -15.34% | -19.83% | +4.49% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.09% | +0.09% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.82% | -3.29% | +0.47% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.82% | 0.44% | +0.38% |
Volatility
DAUG vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - August (DAUG) is 0.75%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 1.27%. This indicates that DAUG 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| DAUG | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.75% | 1.27% | -0.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.37% | 4.84% | -0.47% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.68% | 6.09% | -0.41% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.05% | 13.97% | -5.92% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.27% | 13.86% | -4.59% |
DAUG vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison
DAUG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.
Dividends
DAUG vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison
Neither DAUG nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
DAUG and QMAR have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
QMAR has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to DAUG (0.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DAUG dropped -15.34% vs QMAR's -19.83%.
On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 12.38% vs 6.42% for DAUG. On fees, DAUG is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, DAUG has been the lower-risk option at 0.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 12.38% return vs 6.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
DAUG is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.
DAUG and QMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
DAUG is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DAUG and 0.90% for QMAR.
QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.95 vs 2.77), 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.
Find the right allocation for DAUG and QMAR
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer