JUNM vs. QMAR

Last updated Jul 2, 2026

JUNM (FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - June) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - JUNM is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, JUNM returned 5.43% vs 20.22% for QMAR. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. JUNM charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

JUNM vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - June (JUNM) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JUNM achieves a 2.42% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 12.44% return.

JUNM

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.20%
• YTD: 2.42%
• 6M: 2.42%
• 1Y: 5.43%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: -0.73%
• YTD: 12.44%
• 6M: 12.44%
• 1Y: 20.22%
• 3Y*: 15.67%
• 5Y*: 11.33%
• 10Y*: —

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

JUNM vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
JUNM FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - June	2.42%	7.85%	3.98%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	12.44%	10.89%	6.63%

Correlation

The correlation between JUNM and QMAR is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 24, 2024	0.78

The correlation between JUNM and QMAR shifts across timeframes, from 0.67 (1 year) to 0.78 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

JUNM vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

JUNM

JUNM Risk / Return Rank: 95
JUNM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
JUNM Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
JUNM Omega Ratio Rank: 96
JUNM Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
JUNM Martin Ratio Rank: 96

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 96
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

JUNM vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - June (JUNM) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). 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.

	JUNM	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.09	3.11	-0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.06	4.66	+0.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.70	1.72	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.96	6.32	-1.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	29.45	36.62	-7.17

JUNM vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JUNM Sharpe Ratio is 3.09, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JUNM and QMAR, 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

JUNM vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JUNM drawdown since its inception was -5.42%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JUNM and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	JUNM	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.42%	-19.83%	+14.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.10%	-3.21%	+2.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.91%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.14%	-0.73%	+0.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.40%	-3.25%	+2.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.18%	0.55%	-0.37%

Volatility

JUNM vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - June (JUNM) is 0.50%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 3.04%. This indicates that JUNM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JUNM	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.50%	3.04%	-2.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.45%	5.66%	-4.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.77%	6.55%	-4.78%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.27%	14.02%	-9.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.27%	13.81%	-9.54%

JUNM vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

JUNM has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

JUNM vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither JUNM nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JUNM and QMAR in my portfolio?

JUNM and QMAR have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JUNM or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (3.04%) compared to JUNM (0.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JUNM dropped -5.42% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, JUNM or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 20.22% vs 5.43% for JUNM. On fees, JUNM is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, JUNM has been the lower-risk option at 0.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JUNM or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 20.22% return vs 5.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JUNM or QMAR?

JUNM is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, JUNM or QMAR?

JUNM and QMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between JUNM and QMAR?

JUNM is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for JUNM and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.11 vs 3.09), 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.