DLNV vs. QMAR

Last updated Jul 1, 2026

DLNV (FT Vest U.S. Equity Dual Directional Buffer ETF - November) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - DLNV is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY), while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. DLNV is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. DLNV charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

DLNV vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest U.S. Equity Dual Directional Buffer ETF - November (DLNV) 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, DLNV achieves a 5.60% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 12.83% return.

DLNV

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: 0.15%
• YTD: 5.60%
• 6M: 5.25%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: 0.42%
• 1M: -0.30%
• YTD: 12.83%
• 6M: 12.63%
• 1Y: 20.15%
• 3Y*: 15.80%
• 5Y*: 11.50%
• 10Y*: —

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

DLNV vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
DLNV FT Vest U.S. Equity Dual Directional Buffer ETF - November	5.60%	1.88%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	12.83%	2.81%

Correlation

The correlation between DLNV and QMAR is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 24, 2025	0.84

Return for Risk

DLNV vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

DLNV

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: 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.

DLNV vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Dual Directional Buffer ETF - November (DLNV) 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.

	DLNV	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	3.09	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	4.64	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.71	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	6.30	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	36.63	—

Drawdowns

DLNV vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DLNV drawdown since its inception was -4.83%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DLNV and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	DLNV	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.83%	-19.83%	+15.00%
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	0.00%	-0.39%	+0.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.64%	-3.25%	+2.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.55%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	DLNV	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	3.03%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	5.64%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.08%	6.55%	+0.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.08%	14.02%	-6.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.08%	13.81%	-6.73%

DLNV vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

DLNV has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

DLNV vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither DLNV nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DLNV and QMAR in my portfolio?

DLNV and QMAR have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, DLNV or QMAR?

On fees, DLNV is cheaper at 0.85% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, DLNV or QMAR?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between DLNV and QMAR?

DLNV is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DLNV and 0.90% for QMAR.