FFEB vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FFEB (FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - FFEB is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by FT Vest, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FFEB returned 11.09%/yr vs 12.13%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FFEB charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

FFEB vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February (FFEB) 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, FFEB achieves a 7.65% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

FFEB

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: 2.45%
• YTD: 7.65%
• 6M: 8.55%
• 1Y: 19.32%
• 3Y*: 16.35%
• 5Y*: 11.09%
• 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)

FFEB vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FFEB FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February	7.65%	13.76%	16.64%	19.95%	-7.51%	12.32%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-16.56%	12.31%

Correlation

The correlation between FFEB and QMAR is 0.85, 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	0.83
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2021	0.86

The correlation between FFEB and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

FFEB vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FFEB	QMAR
Technology	36.2%	54.2%
Financial Services	11.9%	0.2%
Communication Services	10.9%	15.5%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	12.2%
Healthcare	8.4%	4.2%
Industrials	8.1%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	7.6%
Energy	3.5%	0.6%
Utilities	2.3%	1.4%
Real Estate	1.9%	0.1%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.2%

Return for Risk

FFEB vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFEB

FFEB Risk / Return Rank: 82
FFEB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
FFEB Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
FFEB Omega Ratio Rank: 88
FFEB Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
FFEB Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

FFEB vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February (FFEB) 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.

	FFEB	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.73	3.86	-1.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.94	6.05	-2.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	1.93	-0.39
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.39	7.31	-3.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.01	52.66	-34.64
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FFEB vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFEB Sharpe Ratio is 2.73, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFEB 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

	FFEB	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.73	3.86	-1.13
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.03	0.87	+0.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.87	0.91	-0.04

Drawdowns

FFEB vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFEB drawdown since its inception was -22.81%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFEB and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFEB	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.81%	-19.83%	-2.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.73%	-3.21%	-2.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.89%	-15.91%	+4.02%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-13.85%	-19.83%	+5.98%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.30%	-0.19%	-0.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.40%	-3.28%	+0.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.08%	0.45%	+0.63%

Volatility

FFEB vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February (FFEB) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) have volatilities of 1.24% and 1.27%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FFEB	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.24%	1.27%	-0.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.56%	4.85%	+0.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.12%	6.09%	+1.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.81%	13.97%	-3.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.75%	13.85%	-0.10%

FFEB vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FFEB vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither FFEB nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFEB and QMAR in my portfolio?

FFEB and QMAR have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FFEB or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to FFEB (1.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFEB dropped -22.81% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, FFEB or QMAR?

On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 12.13% vs 11.09% for FFEB. On fees, FFEB is cheaper at 0.85% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFEB or QMAR?

Over the 5-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 12.13% return vs 11.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFEB or QMAR?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between FFEB and QMAR?

FFEB 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 FFEB and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 2.73), 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.