GMAR vs. FEBP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March) and FEBP (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GMAR returned 15.30% vs 18.57% for FEBP. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GMAR charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for FEBP.

Performance

GMAR vs. FEBP - 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 PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMAR achieves a 7.89% return, which is significantly higher than FEBP's 6.79% return.

GMAR

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 1.52%
• YTD: 7.89%
• 6M: 8.66%
• 1Y: 15.30%
• 3Y*: 12.24%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FEBP

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 2.45%
• YTD: 6.79%
• 6M: 7.87%
• 1Y: 18.57%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GMAR vs. FEBP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March	7.89%	9.29%	11.32%
FEBP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February	6.79%	12.06%	12.73%

Correlation

The correlation between GMAR and FEBP 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	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2024	0.86

The correlation between GMAR and FEBP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GMAR vs. FEBP — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMAR

GMAR Risk / Return Rank: 97
GMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
GMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
GMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 98
GMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
GMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

FEBP

FEBP Risk / Return Rank: 82
FEBP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
FEBP Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FEBP Omega Ratio Rank: 87
FEBP Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
FEBP Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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. FEBP - 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 PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP). 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	FEBP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.94	2.68	+1.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	6.60	3.85	+2.74
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.02	1.53	+0.48
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.56	3.41	+5.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	59.52	17.60	+41.92
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. FEBP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.94, which is higher than the FEBP Sharpe Ratio of 2.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMAR and FEBP, 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

	GMAR	FEBP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.94	2.68	+1.26
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.91	1.53	+0.38

Drawdowns

GMAR vs. FEBP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.11%, smaller than the maximum FEBP drawdown of -12.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMAR and FEBP.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMAR	FEBP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.11%	-12.11%	+3.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.79%	-5.47%	+3.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.11%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.10%	-0.26%	+0.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.54%	-0.91%	+0.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.26%	1.06%	-0.80%

Volatility

GMAR vs. FEBP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) is 0.69%, while PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP) has a volatility of 1.42%. This indicates that GMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FEBP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GMAR	FEBP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.69%	1.42%	-0.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.99%	5.44%	-2.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.90%	6.96%	-3.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.84%	8.98%	-2.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.84%	8.98%	-2.14%

GMAR vs. FEBP - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

GMAR vs. FEBP - Dividend Comparison

Neither GMAR nor FEBP has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GMAR and FEBP in my portfolio?

GMAR and FEBP 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, GMAR or FEBP?

FEBP has higher volatility (1.42%) compared to GMAR (0.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMAR dropped -9.11% vs FEBP's -12.11%.

Which ETF is better, GMAR or FEBP?

On 1-year performance, FEBP leads with 18.57% vs 15.30% for GMAR. On fees, FEBP is cheaper at 0.50% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, GMAR or FEBP?

Over the 1-year period, FEBP has performed better with a 18.57% return vs 15.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMAR or FEBP?

FEBP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for GMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GMAR or FEBP?

GMAR and FEBP have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between GMAR and FEBP?

They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for GMAR and 0.50% for FEBP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.94 vs 2.68), 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.