LCAP vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LCAP (Principal Capital Appreciation Select ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - LCAP is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Principal, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LCAP returned 27.27% vs 23.38% for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LCAP charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

LCAP vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Principal Capital Appreciation Select ETF (LCAP) 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, LCAP achieves a 12.02% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

LCAP

• 1D: -0.87%
• 1M: 3.30%
• YTD: 12.02%
• 6M: 11.68%
• 1Y: 27.27%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 2.81%
• YTD: 13.06%
• 6M: 14.01%
• 1Y: 23.38%
• 3Y*: 16.73%
• 5Y*: 12.13%
• 10Y*: —

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

LCAP vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LCAP Principal Capital Appreciation Select ETF	12.02%	18.16%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	14.59%

Correlation

The correlation between LCAP and QMAR is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2025	0.83

The correlation between LCAP and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

LCAP vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LCAP	QMAR
Technology	36.0%	54.2%
Consumer Cyclical	13.3%	12.2%
Financial Services	12.5%	0.2%
Communication Services	11.0%	15.5%
Healthcare	9.3%	4.2%
Industrials	6.1%	2.8%
Energy	3.8%	0.6%
Utilities	3.2%	1.4%
Basic Materials	1.6%	1.2%
Real Estate	1.6%	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	1.4%	7.6%

Return for Risk

LCAP vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCAP

LCAP Risk / Return Rank: 65
LCAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
LCAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
LCAP Omega Ratio Rank: 63
LCAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
LCAP Martin Ratio Rank: 67

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 96
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
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.

LCAP vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Principal Capital Appreciation Select ETF (LCAP) 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.

	LCAP	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.14	3.86	-1.72
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.02	6.05	-3.03
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.93	-0.55
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.94	7.31	-4.37
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.03	52.66	-40.63
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LCAP vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCAP Sharpe Ratio is 2.14, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCAP 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LCAP	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.14	3.86	-1.72
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.59	0.91	+0.68

Drawdowns

LCAP vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCAP drawdown since its inception was -11.31%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCAP and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCAP	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.31%	-19.83%	+8.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.32%	-3.21%	-6.11%
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	-0.87%	-0.19%	-0.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.61%	-3.28%	+1.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.27%	0.45%	+1.82%

Volatility

LCAP vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

Principal Capital Appreciation Select ETF (LCAP) has a higher volatility of 2.98% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 1.27%. This indicates that LCAP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCAP	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.98%	1.27%	+1.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.16%	4.85%	+5.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.82%	6.09%	+6.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.88%	13.97%	+2.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.88%	13.85%	+3.03%

LCAP vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCAP has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCAP vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

LCAP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.10%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
LCAP Principal Capital Appreciation Select ETF	0.10%	0.11%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCAP and QMAR in my portfolio?

LCAP and QMAR have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LCAP or QMAR?

LCAP has higher volatility (2.98%) compared to QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCAP dropped -11.31% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, LCAP or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, LCAP leads with 27.27% vs 23.38% for QMAR. On fees, LCAP is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 1.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LCAP or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, LCAP has performed better with a 27.27% return vs 23.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCAP or QMAR?

LCAP is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

LCAP has the higher dividend yield at 0.10%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between LCAP and QMAR?

LCAP is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Principal and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for LCAP and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 2.14), 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.