MART vs. FEBT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MART (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF) and FEBT (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF) are both Options Trading funds from Allianz. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, MART returned 16.35%/yr vs 16.37%/yr for FEBT. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.74% expense ratio.

Performance

MART vs. FEBT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF (MART) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with MART having a 8.18% return and FEBT slightly lower at 7.90%.

MART

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 2.60%
• YTD: 8.18%
• 6M: 9.29%
• 1Y: 19.86%
• 3Y*: 16.35%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FEBT

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 2.78%
• YTD: 7.90%
• 6M: 8.78%
• 1Y: 20.34%
• 3Y*: 16.37%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MART vs. FEBT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MART Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF	8.18%	14.93%	15.60%	16.94%
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	7.90%	12.72%	17.29%	17.99%

Correlation

The correlation between MART and FEBT is 0.95, 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	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 2, 2023	0.95

The correlation between MART and FEBT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

MART vs. FEBT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MART	FEBT
Technology	36.2%	36.2%
Financial Services	11.9%	11.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	10.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	8.4%
Industrials	8.1%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.9%
Energy	3.5%	3.5%
Utilities	2.3%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.8%

Return for Risk

MART vs. FEBT — Risk / Return Rank

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

MART

MART Risk / Return Rank: 86
MART Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
MART Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
MART Omega Ratio Rank: 90
MART Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
MART Martin Ratio Rank: 90

FEBT

FEBT Risk / Return Rank: 81
FEBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
FEBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FEBT Omega Ratio Rank: 85
FEBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
FEBT Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

MART vs. FEBT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF (MART) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT). 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.

	MART	FEBT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.82	2.67	+0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.16	3.85	+0.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.52	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.76	3.38	+0.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.14	17.26	+3.87
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MART vs. FEBT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MART Sharpe Ratio is 2.82, which is comparable to the FEBT Sharpe Ratio of 2.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MART and FEBT, 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

	MART	FEBT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.82	2.67	+0.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.79	1.64	+0.15

Drawdowns

MART vs. FEBT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MART drawdown since its inception was -11.61%, smaller than the maximum FEBT drawdown of -13.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MART and FEBT.

Drawdown Indicators

	MART	FEBT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.61%	-13.19%	+1.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.30%	-6.04%	+0.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.61%	-13.19%	+1.58%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.33%	-0.34%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.90%	-1.18%	+0.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.94%	1.18%	-0.24%

Volatility

MART vs. FEBT - Volatility Comparison

Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF (MART) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) have volatilities of 1.31% and 1.28%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MART	FEBT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.31%	1.28%	+0.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.60%	5.98%	-0.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.07%	7.67%	-0.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.69%	9.75%	-0.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.69%	9.75%	-0.06%

MART vs. FEBT - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both MART and FEBT have an expense ratio of 0.74%.

Dividends

MART vs. FEBT - Dividend Comparison

Neither MART nor FEBT has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.28%
MART Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MART and FEBT in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, MART and FEBT move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, MART or FEBT?

MART has higher volatility (1.31%) compared to FEBT (1.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MART dropped -11.61% vs FEBT's -13.19%.

Which ETF is better, MART or FEBT?

On 3-year performance, FEBT leads with 16.37% vs 16.35% for MART. Both ETFs have the same 0.74% expense ratio. 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, MART or FEBT?

Over the 3-year period, FEBT has performed better with a 16.37% return vs 16.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MART or FEBT?

MART and FEBT have the same expense ratio: 0.74% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MART or FEBT?

MART and FEBT have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MART currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.82 vs 2.67), 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.