GMAR vs. UGA

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

GMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March) and UGA (United States Gasoline Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - GMAR is a Options Trading fund actively managed by FT Vest, while UGA is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. GMAR is actively managed, while UGA is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GMAR returned 11.79%/yr vs 17.85%/yr for UGA. At a correlation of -0.03, they often move in opposite directions. GMAR charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for UGA.

Performance

GMAR vs. UGA - 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 United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMAR achieves a 7.33% return, which is significantly lower than UGA's 59.54% return.

GMAR

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: -0.18%
• YTD: 7.33%
• 6M: 7.41%
• 1Y: 13.54%
• 3Y*: 11.79%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UGA

• 1D: -2.77%
• 1M: -14.54%
• YTD: 59.54%
• 6M: 55.91%
• 1Y: 62.68%
• 3Y*: 17.85%
• 5Y*: 22.22%
• 10Y*: 13.99%

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

GMAR vs. UGA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March	7.33%	9.29%	12.14%	12.40%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	59.54%	-2.00%	3.77%	9.37%

Correlation

The correlation between GMAR and UGA is -0.23, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.23
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 20, 2023	-0.03

The correlation between GMAR and UGA shifts across timeframes, from -0.23 (1 year) to -0.03 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

GMAR vs. UGA — 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: 96
GMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
GMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
GMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
GMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

UGA

UGA Risk / Return Rank: 60
UGA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
UGA Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
UGA Omega Ratio Rank: 55
UGA Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
UGA Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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. UGA - 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 United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	GMAR	UGA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.47	1.83	+1.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.72	2.35	+3.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.86	1.31	+0.55
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.58	3.10	+4.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	49.05	9.66	+39.39

GMAR vs. UGA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.47, which is higher than the UGA Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMAR and UGA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

GMAR vs. UGA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.11%, smaller than the maximum UGA drawdown of -86.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMAR and UGA.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMAR	UGA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.11%	-86.59%	+77.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.79%	-20.32%	+18.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.11%	-26.68%	+17.57%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-38.11%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.72%	-20.32%	+19.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.54%	-36.69%	+36.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.28%	6.51%	-6.23%

Volatility

GMAR vs. UGA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) is 1.42%, while United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA) has a volatility of 9.45%. This indicates that GMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UGA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GMAR	UGA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.42%	9.45%	-8.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.26%	30.74%	-27.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.93%	34.84%	-30.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.82%	34.47%	-27.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.82%	37.22%	-30.40%

GMAR vs. UGA - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMAR has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than UGA's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMAR vs. UGA - Dividend Comparison

Neither GMAR nor UGA has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GMAR and UGA in my portfolio?

GMAR and UGA have a correlation of -0.23, 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 UGA?

UGA has higher volatility (9.45%) compared to GMAR (1.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMAR dropped -9.11% vs UGA's -86.59%.

Which ETF is better, GMAR or UGA?

On 3-year performance, UGA leads with 17.85% vs 11.79% for GMAR. On fees, UGA is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, GMAR has been the lower-risk option at 1.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GMAR or UGA?

Over the 3-year period, UGA has performed better with a 17.85% return vs 11.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMAR or UGA?

UGA is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for GMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between GMAR and UGA?

GMAR is categorized as Options Trading, while UGA is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for GMAR and 0.75% for UGA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.47 vs 1.82), 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.