GMAR vs. BGLD
GMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March) and BGLD (FT Vest Gold Strategy Quarterly Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GMAR is a Options Trading fund actively managed by FT Vest, while BGLD is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by FT Vest. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GMAR returned 12.24%/yr vs 19.37%/yr for BGLD. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GMAR charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.91%/yr for BGLD.
Performance
GMAR vs. BGLD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GMAR achieves a 7.89% return, which is significantly higher than BGLD's 0.32% return.
GMAR
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- 1.52%
- YTD
- 7.89%
- 6M
- 8.66%
- 1Y
- 15.30%
- 3Y*
- 12.24%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BGLD
- 1D
- -0.52%
- 1M
- 0.80%
- YTD
- 0.32%
- 6M
- 1.34%
- 1Y
- 12.93%
- 3Y*
- 19.37%
- 5Y*
- 11.20%
- 10Y*
- —
GMAR vs. BGLD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March | 7.89% | 9.29% | 12.14% | 11.95% |
BGLD FT Vest Gold Strategy Quarterly Buffer ETF | 0.32% | 33.03% | 21.80% | 7.37% |
Correlation
The correlation between GMAR and BGLD is 0.10, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.10 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.12 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2023 | 0.10 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
GMAR vs. BGLD — Risk / Return Rank
GMAR
BGLD
GMAR vs. BGLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) and FT Vest Gold Strategy Quarterly Buffer ETF (BGLD). 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.
| GMAR | BGLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 3.94 | 1.09 | +2.85 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 6.60 | 1.51 | +5.08 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 2.02 | 1.21 | +0.80 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 8.56 | 1.17 | +7.39 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 59.52 | 3.72 | +55.80 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GMAR | BGLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.94 | 1.09 | +2.85 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 1.13 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.91 | 1.05 | +0.86 |
Drawdowns
GMAR vs. BGLD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.11%, smaller than the maximum BGLD drawdown of -16.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMAR and BGLD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GMAR | BGLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -9.11% | -16.19% | +7.08% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.79% | -11.11% | +9.32% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -9.11% | -11.11% | +2.00% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -15.52% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.10% | -7.22% | +7.12% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.54% | -3.64% | +3.10% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.26% | 3.49% | -3.23% |
Volatility
GMAR vs. BGLD - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) is 0.69%, while FT Vest Gold Strategy Quarterly Buffer ETF (BGLD) has a volatility of 2.20%. This indicates that GMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BGLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GMAR | BGLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.69% | 2.20% | -1.51% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.99% | 10.04% | -7.05% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.90% | 11.90% | -8.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.84% | 9.97% | -3.13% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.84% | 9.89% | -3.05% |
GMAR vs. BGLD - Expense Ratio Comparison
GMAR has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than BGLD's 0.91% expense ratio.
Dividends
GMAR vs. BGLD - Dividend Comparison
GMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BGLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 44.18%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BGLD FT Vest Gold Strategy Quarterly Buffer ETF | 44.18% | 44.32% | 25.04% | 10.49% | 0.40% |
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GMAR and BGLD have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BGLD has higher volatility (2.20%) compared to GMAR (0.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMAR dropped -9.11% vs BGLD's -16.19%.
On 3-year performance, BGLD leads with 19.37% vs 12.24% for GMAR. On fees, GMAR is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, GMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, BGLD has performed better with a 19.37% return vs 12.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GMAR is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.91% for BGLD.
BGLD has the higher dividend yield at 44.18%, compared with 0.00% for GMAR.
GMAR is categorized as Options Trading, while BGLD is Defined Outcome. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for GMAR and 0.91% for BGLD.
GMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.94 vs 1.09), 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.
Find the right allocation for GMAR and BGLD
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer