ISWN vs. GMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ISWN (Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF) and GMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds. ISWN is passively managed, while GMAR is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ISWN returned 8.12%/yr vs 12.24%/yr for GMAR. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ISWN charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for GMAR.

Performance

ISWN vs. GMAR - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ISWN achieves a 4.28% return, which is significantly lower than GMAR's 7.89% return.

ISWN

• 1D: -0.80%
• 1M: 2.01%
• YTD: 4.28%
• 6M: 4.94%
• 1Y: 13.27%
• 3Y*: 8.12%
• 5Y*: -0.37%
• 10Y*: —

GMAR

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

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

ISWN vs. GMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ISWN Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF	4.28%	23.23%	-3.96%	4.28%
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March	7.89%	9.29%	12.14%	11.95%

Correlation

The correlation between ISWN and GMAR is 0.64, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2023	0.54

The correlation between ISWN and GMAR shifts across timeframes, from 0.54 (all time) to 0.64 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ISWN vs. GMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ISWN	GMAR
Industrials	19.8%	8.1%
Healthcare	10.6%	8.4%
Technology	10.3%	36.2%
Consumer Cyclical	7.7%	10.1%
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	4.9%
Basic Materials	5.9%	1.8%
Communication Services	4.5%	10.9%
Energy	4.0%	3.5%
Utilities	4.0%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%
Financial Services	1.6%	11.9%

Return for Risk

ISWN vs. GMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

ISWN

ISWN Risk / Return Rank: 30
ISWN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
ISWN Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
ISWN Omega Ratio Rank: 30
ISWN Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
ISWN Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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

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.

ISWN vs. GMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF (ISWN) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR). 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.

	ISWN	GMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.09	3.94	-2.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.60	6.60	-5.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	2.02	-0.82
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.38	8.56	-7.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.67	59.52	-54.85
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ISWN vs. GMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ISWN Sharpe Ratio is 1.09, which is lower than the GMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ISWN and GMAR, 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

	ISWN	GMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.09	3.94	-2.85
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.03	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.01	1.91	-1.90

Drawdowns

ISWN vs. GMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ISWN drawdown since its inception was -32.35%, which is greater than GMAR's maximum drawdown of -9.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISWN and GMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	ISWN	GMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.35%	-9.11%	-23.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.63%	-1.79%	-7.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.77%	-9.11%	-4.66%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.35%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.03%	-0.10%	-3.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.17%	-0.54%	-15.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.85%	0.26%	+2.59%

Volatility

ISWN vs. GMAR - Volatility Comparison

Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF (ISWN) has a higher volatility of 4.67% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) at 0.69%. This indicates that ISWN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ISWN	GMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.67%	0.69%	+3.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.10%	2.99%	+7.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.20%	3.90%	+8.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.67%	6.84%	+4.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.57%	6.84%	+4.73%

ISWN vs. GMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

ISWN has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than GMAR's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

ISWN vs. GMAR - Dividend Comparison

ISWN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.82%, while GMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ISWN Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF	2.82%	2.89%	3.27%	2.91%	2.00%	0.76%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ISWN and GMAR in my portfolio?

ISWN and GMAR have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ISWN or GMAR?

ISWN has higher volatility (4.67%) compared to GMAR (0.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISWN dropped -32.35% vs GMAR's -9.11%.

Which ETF is better, ISWN or GMAR?

On 3-year performance, GMAR leads with 12.24% vs 8.12% for ISWN. On fees, ISWN is cheaper at 0.49% 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, ISWN or GMAR?

Over the 3-year period, GMAR has performed better with a 12.24% return vs 8.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ISWN or GMAR?

ISWN is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for GMAR.

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

ISWN has the higher dividend yield at 2.82%, compared with 0.00% for GMAR.

What is the main difference between ISWN and GMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Amplify and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for ISWN and 0.85% for GMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.94 vs 1.09), 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.