GMAR vs. CLOZ

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) and Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF (CLOZ).

GMAR and CLOZ are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. GMAR is an actively managed fund by FT Vest. It was launched on Mar 16, 2023. CLOZ is an actively managed fund by Panagram. It was launched on Jan 23, 2023.

Performance

GMAR vs. CLOZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) and Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF (CLOZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

GMAR vs. CLOZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March	1.83%	9.29%	12.14%	11.95%
CLOZ Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF	-1.92%	5.99%	11.85%	14.66%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMAR achieves a 1.83% return, which is significantly higher than CLOZ's -1.92% return.

GMAR

• 1D: 1.56%
• 1M: 0.87%
• YTD: 1.83%
• 6M: 3.97%
• 1Y: 12.07%
• 3Y*: 11.13%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLOZ

• 1D: 0.31%
• 1M: 0.39%
• YTD: -1.92%
• 6M: -0.71%
• 1Y: 4.26%
• 3Y*: 9.76%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GMAR vs. CLOZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMAR has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than CLOZ's 0.50% expense ratio.

GMAR

FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March

CLOZ

Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF

Return for Risk

GMAR vs. CLOZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMAR

GMAR Risk / Return Rank: 82
GMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
GMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
GMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 94
GMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
GMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 90

CLOZ

CLOZ Risk / Return Rank: 47
CLOZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
CLOZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
CLOZ Omega Ratio Rank: 64
CLOZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
CLOZ Martin Ratio Rank: 41

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.

GMAR vs. CLOZ - 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 Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF (CLOZ). 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	CLOZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.43	0.78	+0.65
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.09	1.04	+1.05
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.22	+0.22
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.83	1.10	+0.73
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.88	3.53	+8.35
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GMAR vs. CLOZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMAR Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is higher than the CLOZ Sharpe Ratio of 0.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMAR and CLOZ, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GMAR	CLOZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.43	0.78	+0.65
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.69	2.51	-0.82

Correlation

The correlation between GMAR and CLOZ is 0.20, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.

Dividends

GMAR vs. CLOZ - Dividend Comparison

GMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CLOZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.97%.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CLOZ Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF	7.97%	7.63%	9.09%	8.81%

Drawdowns

GMAR vs. CLOZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.11%, which is greater than CLOZ's maximum drawdown of -5.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMAR and CLOZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMAR	CLOZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.11%	-5.32%	-3.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.85%	-3.90%	-2.95%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.26%	-3.15%	+2.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.57%	-0.36%	-0.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.05%	1.22%	-0.17%

Volatility

GMAR vs. CLOZ - Volatility Comparison

FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) has a higher volatility of 2.18% compared to Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF (CLOZ) at 1.35%. This indicates that GMAR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CLOZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GMAR	CLOZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.18%	1.35%	+0.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.84%	2.90%	-0.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.50%	5.48%	+3.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.96%	3.82%	+3.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.96%	3.82%	+3.14%