DAUG vs. QMAR

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

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 6.54%/yr vs 11.10%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.83 means they have usually moved in the same direction. DAUG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

DAUG vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - August (DAUG) 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, DAUG achieves a 6.63% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.91% return.

DAUG

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: 0.95%
• 6M: 5.81%
• YTD: 6.63%
• 1Y: 12.27%
• 3Y*: 10.67%
• 5Y*: 6.54%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.91%

QMAR

• 1D: 0.47%
• 1M: 0.04%
• 6M: 11.24%
• YTD: 11.91%
• 1Y: 18.52%
• 3Y*: 14.85%
• 5Y*: 11.10%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.03%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
DAUG FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - August	$245.93K	$215.56K	$296.36K
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	$319.00K	$316.44K	$452.98K

DAUG vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DAUG FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - August	6.63%	11.75%	12.00%	13.85%	-11.95%	5.26%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.91%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-16.56%	12.87%

Correlation

The correlation between DAUG and QMAR is 0.86, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.82
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2021	0.83

The correlation between DAUG and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

DAUG vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DAUG	QMAR
Technology	37.9%	60.2%
Financial Services	11.7%	0.2%
Communication Services	10.0%	13.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	10.9%
Healthcare	9.1%	3.6%
Industrials	8.4%	2.7%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	6.5%
Energy	3.0%	0.5%
Utilities	2.3%	1.2%
Real Estate	1.9%	0.1%
Basic Materials	1.7%	1.0%

Return for Risk

DAUG vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

DAUG

DAUG Risk / Return Rank: 86
DAUG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
DAUG Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
DAUG Omega Ratio Rank: 89
DAUG Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
DAUG Martin Ratio Rank: 89

QMAR

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

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

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.

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.

	DAUG	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	2.55	-0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.05	3.83	-0.78
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.55	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.66	5.54	-2.88
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.98	26.00	-12.01

DAUG vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DAUG Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DAUG 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

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	DAUG	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest 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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.20%	+1.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.76%	-3.22%	+0.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.83%	0.68%	+0.15%

Volatility

DAUG vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - August (DAUG) is 1.02%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 2.60%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	DAUG	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.02%	2.60%	-1.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.44%	6.16%	-1.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.58%	6.99%	-1.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.08%	14.04%	-5.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.19%	13.75%	-4.56%

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.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DAUG and QMAR in my portfolio?

DAUG and QMAR have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DAUG or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (2.60%) compared to DAUG (1.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DAUG dropped -15.34% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, DAUG or QMAR?

On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 11.10% vs 6.54% for DAUG. On fees, DAUG is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, DAUG has been the lower-risk option at 1.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DAUG or QMAR?

Over the 5-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 11.10% return vs 6.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DAUG or QMAR?

DAUG is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between DAUG and QMAR?

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.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 2.09), 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.