GMAR vs. QFLR

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR).

GMAR and QFLR 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. QFLR is an actively managed fund by Innovator. It was launched on Jan 24, 2024.

Performance

GMAR vs. QFLR - 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 Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

GMAR vs. QFLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March	2.32%	9.29%	11.46%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	-2.22%	17.27%	16.64%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMAR achieves a 2.32% return, which is significantly higher than QFLR's -2.22% return.

GMAR

• 1D: 0.48%
• 1M: 1.40%
• YTD: 2.32%
• 6M: 4.36%
• 1Y: 12.40%
• 3Y*: 11.31%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QFLR

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: -2.97%
• YTD: -2.22%
• 6M: 0.78%
• 1Y: 23.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GMAR vs. QFLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMAR has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than QFLR's 0.89% expense ratio.

QFLR

Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF

GMAR

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

Return for Risk

GMAR vs. QFLR — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMAR

GMAR Risk / Return Rank: 81
GMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
GMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
GMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 94
GMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
GMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 88

QFLR

QFLR Risk / Return Rank: 89
QFLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
QFLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
QFLR Omega Ratio Rank: 86
QFLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
QFLR Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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. QFLR - 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 Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). 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	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.46	1.91	-0.45
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.14	2.62	-0.48
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.36	+0.10
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.84	3.17	-1.32
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.96	13.59	-1.63
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. QFLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMAR Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is comparable to the QFLR Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMAR and QFLR, 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	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.46	1.91	-0.45
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.71	1.11	+0.60

Correlation

The correlation between GMAR and QFLR is 0.77, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

GMAR vs. QFLR - Dividend Comparison

Neither GMAR nor QFLR has paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	0.00%	0.02%	0.03%

Drawdowns

GMAR vs. QFLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.11%, smaller than the maximum QFLR drawdown of -13.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMAR and QFLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMAR	QFLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.11%	-13.97%	+4.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.85%	-7.61%	+0.76%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-4.77%	+4.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.57%	-2.61%	+2.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.05%	1.77%	-0.72%

Volatility

GMAR vs. QFLR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) is 2.22%, while Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) has a volatility of 4.97%. This indicates that GMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QFLR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GMAR	QFLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.22%	4.97%	-2.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.87%	9.49%	-6.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.50%	12.32%	-3.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.96%	12.89%	-5.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.96%	12.89%	-5.93%