FEBT vs. DMAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FEBT (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF) and DMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FEBT returned 15.49%/yr vs 11.70%/yr for DMAR. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FEBT charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DMAR.

Performance

FEBT vs. DMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - March (DMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with FEBT having a 6.90% return and DMAR slightly lower at 6.84%.

FEBT

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: -0.24%
• YTD: 6.90%
• 6M: 6.53%
• 1Y: 18.40%
• 3Y*: 15.49%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DMAR

• 1D: -0.31%
• 1M: -0.06%
• YTD: 6.84%
• 6M: 6.93%
• 1Y: 13.82%
• 3Y*: 11.70%
• 5Y*: 7.52%
• 10Y*: —

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

FEBT vs. DMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	6.90%	12.72%	17.29%	15.47%
DMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - March	6.84%	9.13%	12.74%	11.69%

Correlation

The correlation between FEBT and DMAR is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 1, 2023	0.86

The correlation between FEBT and DMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FEBT vs. DMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEBT

FEBT Risk / Return Rank: 79
FEBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
FEBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
FEBT Omega Ratio Rank: 83
FEBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
FEBT Martin Ratio Rank: 82

DMAR

DMAR Risk / Return Rank: 97
DMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
DMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
DMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
DMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
DMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

FEBT vs. DMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - March (DMAR). 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.

	FEBT	DMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.37	3.71	-1.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.39	6.08	-2.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.92	-0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.06	9.06	-6.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.28	53.38	-38.10

FEBT vs. DMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBT Sharpe Ratio is 2.37, which is lower than the DMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBT and DMAR, 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

FEBT vs. DMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBT drawdown since its inception was -13.19%, which is greater than DMAR's maximum drawdown of -9.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBT and DMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBT	DMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.19%	-9.84%	-3.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.04%	-1.53%	-4.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.19%	-9.16%	-4.03%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-9.84%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.26%	-0.50%	-0.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.17%	-1.83%	+0.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.21%	0.26%	+0.95%

Volatility

FEBT vs. DMAR - Volatility Comparison

Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) has a higher volatility of 2.39% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - March (DMAR) at 1.42%. This indicates that FEBT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FEBT	DMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.39%	1.42%	+0.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.28%	3.04%	+3.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.84%	3.77%	+4.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.76%	7.06%	+2.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.76%	6.96%	+2.80%

FEBT vs. DMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEBT has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than DMAR's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

FEBT vs. DMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither FEBT nor DMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
DMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.28%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEBT and DMAR in my portfolio?

FEBT and DMAR 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, FEBT or DMAR?

FEBT has higher volatility (2.39%) compared to DMAR (1.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FEBT dropped -13.19% vs DMAR's -9.84%.

Which ETF is better, FEBT or DMAR?

On 3-year performance, FEBT leads with 15.49% vs 11.70% for DMAR. On fees, FEBT is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, DMAR has been the lower-risk option at 1.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FEBT or DMAR?

Over the 3-year period, FEBT has performed better with a 15.49% return vs 11.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEBT or DMAR?

FEBT is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FEBT or DMAR?

FEBT and DMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between FEBT and DMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Allianz and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for FEBT and 0.85% for DMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.71 vs 2.37), 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.