ERNZ vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ERNZ (TrueShares Active Yield ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - ERNZ is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by TrueShares, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ERNZ returned 2.28% vs 23.38% for QMAR. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ERNZ charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

ERNZ vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TrueShares Active Yield ETF (ERNZ) 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, ERNZ achieves a 4.89% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

ERNZ

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 4.89%
• 6M: 3.58%
• 1Y: 2.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 2.81%
• YTD: 13.06%
• 6M: 14.01%
• 1Y: 23.38%
• 3Y*: 16.73%
• 5Y*: 12.13%
• 10Y*: —

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

ERNZ vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ERNZ TrueShares Active Yield ETF	4.89%	-6.50%	3.43%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	10.89%	15.71%

Correlation

The correlation between ERNZ and QMAR is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2024	0.44

The correlation between ERNZ and QMAR shifts across timeframes, from 0.30 (1 year) to 0.44 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ERNZ vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ERNZ	QMAR
Financial Services	24.6%	0.2%
Energy	23.0%	0.6%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	8.7%	7.6%
Real Estate	8.7%	0.1%
Basic Materials	6.1%	1.2%
Healthcare	5.8%	4.2%
Communication Services	3.5%	15.5%
Utilities	3.5%	1.4%
Technology	3.3%	54.2%
Industrials	2.9%	2.8%

Return for Risk

ERNZ vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

ERNZ

ERNZ Risk / Return Rank: 12
ERNZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
ERNZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
ERNZ Omega Ratio Rank: 12
ERNZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
ERNZ Martin Ratio Rank: 11

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 96
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
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.

ERNZ vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Active Yield ETF (ERNZ) 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.

	ERNZ	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.24	3.86	-3.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.42	6.05	-5.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.93	-0.88
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.22	7.31	-7.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.47	52.66	-52.19
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ERNZ vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ERNZ Sharpe Ratio is 0.24, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ERNZ 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ERNZ	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24	3.86	-3.63
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.06	0.91	-0.85

Drawdowns

ERNZ vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ERNZ drawdown since its inception was -14.16%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ERNZ and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	ERNZ	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.16%	-19.83%	+5.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.61%	-3.21%	-7.40%
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	-5.59%	-0.19%	-5.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.58%	-3.28%	-1.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.88%	0.45%	+4.43%

Volatility

ERNZ vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for TrueShares Active Yield ETF (ERNZ) is 0.00%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 1.27%. This indicates that ERNZ 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

	ERNZ	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.00%	1.27%	-1.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.40%	4.85%	-0.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.75%	6.09%	+3.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.77%	13.97%	-2.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.77%	13.85%	-2.08%

ERNZ vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

ERNZ has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

ERNZ vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

ERNZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.37%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
ERNZ TrueShares Active Yield ETF	6.37%	9.90%	5.51%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ERNZ and QMAR in my portfolio?

ERNZ and QMAR have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ERNZ or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to ERNZ (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ERNZ dropped -14.16% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, ERNZ or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 23.38% vs 2.28% for ERNZ. On fees, ERNZ is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, ERNZ has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ERNZ or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 23.38% return vs 2.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ERNZ or QMAR?

ERNZ is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

ERNZ has the higher dividend yield at 6.37%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between ERNZ and QMAR?

ERNZ is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: TrueShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for ERNZ and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 0.24), 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.