MART vs. GMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MART (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF) and GMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, MART returned 16.35%/yr vs 12.24%/yr for GMAR. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MART charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for GMAR.

Performance

MART vs. GMAR - 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 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

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with MART having a 8.18% return and GMAR slightly lower at 7.89%.

MART

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

MART vs. GMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MART Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF	8.18%	14.93%	15.60%	16.63%
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March	7.89%	9.29%	12.14%	11.95%

Correlation

The correlation between MART and GMAR is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2023	0.90

The correlation between MART and GMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

MART vs. GMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MART	GMAR
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. GMAR — 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

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.

MART vs. GMAR - 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 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.

	MART	GMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.82	3.94	-1.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.16	6.60	-2.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	2.02	-0.43
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.76	8.56	-4.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.14	59.52	-38.38
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. GMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MART Sharpe Ratio is 2.82, which is comparable to the GMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MART 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

	MART	GMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.82	3.94	-1.12
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.79	1.91	-0.12

Drawdowns

MART vs. GMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MART drawdown since its inception was -11.61%, which is greater than GMAR's maximum drawdown of -9.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MART and GMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	MART	GMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.61%	-9.11%	-2.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.30%	-1.79%	-3.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.61%	-9.11%	-2.50%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.33%	-0.10%	-0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.90%	-0.54%	-0.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.94%	0.26%	+0.68%

Volatility

MART vs. GMAR - Volatility Comparison

Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF (MART) has a higher volatility of 1.31% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) at 0.69%. This indicates that MART'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

	MART	GMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.31%	0.69%	+0.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.60%	2.99%	+2.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.07%	3.90%	+3.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.69%	6.84%	+2.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.69%	6.84%	+2.85%

MART vs. GMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

MART has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than GMAR's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

MART vs. GMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither MART nor GMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MART and GMAR in my portfolio?

MART and GMAR have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MART or GMAR?

MART has higher volatility (1.31%) compared to GMAR (0.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MART dropped -11.61% vs GMAR's -9.11%.

Which ETF is better, MART or GMAR?

On 3-year performance, MART leads with 16.35% vs 12.24% for GMAR. On fees, MART is cheaper at 0.74% 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, MART or GMAR?

Over the 3-year period, MART has performed better with a 16.35% return vs 12.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MART or GMAR?

MART is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for GMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between MART and GMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Allianz and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for MART and 0.85% for GMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.94 vs 2.82), 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.