GMAY vs. XMAR

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GMAY (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - May) and XMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds from FT Vest. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GMAY returned 11.00%/yr vs 10.73%/yr for XMAR. Their 0.77 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. Both charge a 0.85% expense ratio.

Performance

GMAY vs. XMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - May (GMAY) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMAY achieves a 4.73% return, which is significantly lower than XMAR's 7.66% return.

GMAY

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: 0.48%
• 6M: 4.11%
• YTD: 4.73%
• 1Y: 9.98%
• 3Y*: 11.00%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.85%

XMAR

• 1D: 0.33%
• 1M: 0.62%
• 6M: 7.10%
• YTD: 7.66%
• 1Y: 11.80%
• 3Y*: 10.73%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.62%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
GMAY FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - May	$856.43K	$2.12M	$6.06M
XMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March	$447.53K	$386.74K	$822.13K

GMAY vs. XMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GMAY FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - May	4.73%	11.94%	12.12%	8.77%
XMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March	7.66%	10.30%	10.10%	6.98%

Correlation

The correlation between GMAY and XMAR is 0.79, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 22, 2023	0.77

The correlation between GMAY and XMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GMAY vs. XMAR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GMAY

GMAY Risk / Return Rank: 81
GMAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
GMAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
GMAY Omega Ratio Rank: 81
GMAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
GMAY Martin Ratio Rank: 90

XMAR

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

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GMAY vs. XMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - May (GMAY) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR). 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.

	GMAY	XMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.71	3.70	-1.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	6.12	-3.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.95	-0.60
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.03	7.81	-4.78
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.77	51.75	-36.98

GMAY vs. XMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMAY Sharpe Ratio is 1.71, which is lower than the XMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMAY and XMAR, 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

GMAY vs. XMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMAY drawdown since its inception was -11.75%, which is greater than XMAR's maximum drawdown of -7.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMAY and XMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMAY	XMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.75%	-7.29%	-4.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.11%	-1.48%	-1.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.75%	-7.29%	-4.46%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.24%	0.00%	-0.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.72%	-0.30%	-0.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.64%	0.22%	+0.42%

Volatility

GMAY vs. XMAR - Volatility Comparison

FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - May (GMAY) has a higher volatility of 2.02% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) at 0.85%. This indicates that GMAY's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GMAY	XMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.02%	0.85%	+1.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.72%	2.75%	+1.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.51%	3.12%	+2.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.85%	5.47%	+2.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.85%	5.47%	+2.38%

GMAY vs. XMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GMAY and XMAR have an expense ratio of 0.85%.

Dividends

GMAY vs. XMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither GMAY nor XMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GMAY and XMAR in my portfolio?

GMAY and XMAR have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GMAY or XMAR?

GMAY has higher volatility (2.02%) compared to XMAR (0.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMAY dropped -11.75% vs XMAR's -7.29%.

Which ETF is better, GMAY or XMAR?

On 3-year performance, GMAY leads with 11.00% vs 10.73% for XMAR. Both ETFs have the same 0.85% expense ratio. On volatility, XMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GMAY or XMAR?

Over the 3-year period, GMAY has performed better with a 11.00% return vs 10.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMAY or XMAR?

GMAY and XMAR have the same expense ratio: 0.85% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GMAY or XMAR?

GMAY and XMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.70 vs 1.71), 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.