MARM vs. CPRA

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

MARM (FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - March) and CPRA (Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MARM returned 6.52% vs 8.87% for CPRA. Their 0.56 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. MARM charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for CPRA.

Performance

MARM vs. CPRA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - March (MARM) and Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CPRA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MARM achieves a 3.75% return, which is significantly lower than CPRA's 4.58% return.

MARM

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: 0.45%
• 6M: 3.37%
• YTD: 3.75%
• 1Y: 6.52%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.18%

CPRA

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 0.32%
• 6M: 3.95%
• YTD: 4.58%
• 1Y: 8.87%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 8.76%

*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)
CPRA Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April	$23.06K	$26.22K	$32.24K
MARM FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - March	$86.91K	$116.28K	$141.41K

MARM vs. CPRA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MARM FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - March	3.75%	5.40%
CPRA Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April	4.58%	6.93%

Correlation

The correlation between MARM and CPRA is 0.53, 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.	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2025	0.56

The correlation between MARM and CPRA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MARM vs. CPRA — Risk / Return Rank

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

MARM

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

CPRA

CPRA Risk / Return Rank: 98
CPRA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
CPRA Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
CPRA Omega Ratio Rank: 98
CPRA Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
CPRA 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.

MARM vs. CPRA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - March (MARM) and Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CPRA). 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.

	MARM	CPRA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.04	3.96	+0.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	6.86	6.87	-0.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.96	1.95	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	10.36	9.57	+0.78
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	57.16	54.79	+2.36

MARM vs. CPRA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MARM Sharpe Ratio is 4.04, which is comparable to the CPRA Sharpe Ratio of 3.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MARM and CPRA, 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

MARM vs. CPRA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MARM drawdown since its inception was -2.74%, which is greater than CPRA's maximum drawdown of -1.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MARM and CPRA.

Drawdown Indicators

	MARM	CPRA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.74%	-1.69%	-1.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.63%	-0.89%	+0.26%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.02%	+0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.20%	-0.14%	-0.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.11%	0.16%	-0.05%

Volatility

MARM vs. CPRA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - March (MARM) is 0.36%, while Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CPRA) has a volatility of 0.44%. This indicates that MARM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CPRA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MARM	CPRA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.36%	0.44%	-0.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.37%	1.36%	+0.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.61%	2.16%	-0.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.29%	2.71%	+0.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.29%	2.71%	+0.58%

MARM vs. CPRA - Expense Ratio Comparison

MARM has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than CPRA's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

MARM vs. CPRA - Dividend Comparison

Neither MARM nor CPRA has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MARM and CPRA in my portfolio?

MARM and CPRA have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MARM or CPRA?

CPRA has higher volatility (0.44%) compared to MARM (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MARM dropped -2.74% vs CPRA's -1.69%.

Which ETF is better, MARM or CPRA?

On 1-year performance, CPRA leads with 8.87% vs 6.52% for MARM. On fees, CPRA is cheaper at 0.69% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MARM or CPRA?

Over the 1-year period, CPRA has performed better with a 8.87% return vs 6.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MARM or CPRA?

CPRA is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for MARM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MARM or CPRA?

MARM and CPRA have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between MARM and CPRA?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Calamos. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for MARM and 0.69% for CPRA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MARM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.04 vs 3.96), 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.