DDNQ vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

DDNQ (Innovator Growth-100 Dual Directional 5 Buffer ETF - Quarterly) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - DDNQ is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Innovator, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. DDNQ charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

DDNQ vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth-100 Dual Directional 5 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (DDNQ) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

DDNQ

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 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)

DDNQ vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
DDNQ Innovator Growth-100 Dual Directional 5 Buffer ETF - Quarterly	4.31%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	12.60%

Correlation

The correlation between DDNQ and QMAR is 0.75, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 2, 2026	0.75

Return for Risk

DDNQ vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

DDNQ

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

DDNQ vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth-100 Dual Directional 5 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (DDNQ) 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.

	DDNQ	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	3.53	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	5.35	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.84	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	7.09	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	44.33	—

Drawdowns

DDNQ vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DDNQ drawdown since its inception was -5.65%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DDNQ and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	DDNQ	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.65%	-19.83%	+14.18%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-3.21%	—
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	-0.08%	-0.59%	+0.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.68%	-3.26%	+2.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.51%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	DDNQ	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	2.72%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	5.48%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.73%	6.46%	+3.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.73%	14.01%	-4.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.73%	13.83%	-4.10%

DDNQ vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

DDNQ has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

DDNQ vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither DDNQ nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DDNQ and QMAR in my portfolio?

DDNQ and QMAR have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, DDNQ or QMAR?

On fees, DDNQ is cheaper at 0.79% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, DDNQ or QMAR?

DDNQ is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between DDNQ and QMAR?

DDNQ is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for DDNQ and 0.90% for QMAR.