PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GMAR vs. GJUN
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GMAR vs. GJUN - 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 FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - June (GJUN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMAR achieves a 7.99% return, which is significantly higher than GJUN's 3.71% return.


GMAR

1D
-0.01%
1M
1.47%
YTD
7.99%
6M
8.99%
1Y
15.68%
3Y*
12.27%
5Y*
10Y*

GJUN

1D
0.07%
1M
0.72%
YTD
3.71%
6M
4.59%
1Y
12.00%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GMAR vs. GJUN - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
GMAR
FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March
7.99%9.29%12.14%6.08%
GJUN
FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - June
3.71%10.00%13.24%6.43%

Correlation

The correlation between GMAR and GJUN 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 Jun 21, 2023

0.86

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

GMAR vs. GJUN - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
GMAR
GJUN

Technology

36.2%
36.2%

Financial Services

11.9%
11.9%

Communication Services

10.9%
10.9%

Consumer Cyclical

10.1%
10.1%

Healthcare

8.4%
8.4%

Industrials

8.1%
8.1%

Consumer Defensive

4.9%
4.9%

Energy

3.5%
3.5%

Utilities

2.3%
2.3%

Real Estate

1.9%
1.9%

Basic Materials

1.8%
1.8%

Technology

GMAR
36.2%
GJUN
36.2%

Financial Services

GMAR
11.9%
GJUN
11.9%

Communication Services

GMAR
10.9%
GJUN
10.9%

Consumer Cyclical

GMAR
10.1%
GJUN
10.1%

Healthcare

GMAR
8.4%
GJUN
8.4%

Industrials

GMAR
8.1%
GJUN
8.1%

Consumer Defensive

GMAR
4.9%
GJUN
4.9%

Energy

GMAR
3.5%
GJUN
3.5%

Utilities

GMAR
2.3%
GJUN
2.3%

Real Estate

GMAR
1.9%
GJUN
1.9%

Basic Materials

GMAR
1.8%
GJUN
1.8%

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. GJUN — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMAR
GMAR Risk / Return Rank: 9797
Overall Rank
GMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9595
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
GMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
GMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 9696
Calmar Ratio Rank
GMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 9898
Martin Ratio Rank

GJUN
GJUN Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
GJUN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GJUN Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
GJUN Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
GJUN Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
GJUN Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
Martin Ratio Rank
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. GJUN - 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 Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - June (GJUN). 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.


GMARGJUNDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

4.04

2.46

+1.58

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

6.76

3.78

+2.98

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

2.05

1.54

+0.51

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

8.85

4.18

+4.67

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

61.68

23.11

+38.57

GMAR vs. GJUN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMAR Sharpe Ratio is 4.04, which is higher than the GJUN Sharpe Ratio of 2.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMAR and GJUN, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GMARGJUNDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.04

2.46

+1.58

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.92

1.45

+0.47

Drawdowns

GMAR vs. GJUN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.11%, smaller than the maximum GJUN drawdown of -10.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMAR and GJUN.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GMARGJUNDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-9.11%

-10.97%

+1.86%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-1.79%

-2.97%

+1.18%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-9.11%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.01%

0.00%

-0.01%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.54%

-0.89%

+0.35%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.26%

0.54%

-0.28%

Volatility

GMAR vs. GJUN - Volatility Comparison

FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) has a higher volatility of 0.71% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - June (GJUN) at 0.35%. This indicates that GMAR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GJUN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GMARGJUNDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.71%

0.35%

+0.36%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.98%

3.31%

-0.33%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.90%

4.92%

-1.02%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

6.84%

7.90%

-1.06%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

6.84%

7.90%

-1.06%

GMAR vs. GJUN - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GMAR and GJUN have an expense ratio of 0.85%.


Dividends

GMAR vs. GJUN - Dividend Comparison

Neither GMAR nor GJUN has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


GMAR and GJUN 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.

GMAR has higher volatility (0.71%) compared to GJUN (0.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMAR dropped -9.11% vs GJUN's -10.97%.

On 1-year performance, GMAR leads with 15.68% vs 12.00% for GJUN. Both ETFs have the same 0.85% expense ratio. On volatility, GJUN has been the lower-risk option at 0.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, GMAR has performed better with a 15.68% return vs 12.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GMAR and GJUN have the same expense ratio: 0.85% per year.

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

GMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.04 vs 2.46), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GMAR and GJUN

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