MARU vs. QBSF

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MARU (AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Mar ETF) and QBSF (AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds from AllianzIM. MARU is passively managed, while QBSF is actively managed. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MARU charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.64%/yr for QBSF.

Performance

MARU vs. QBSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Mar ETF (MARU) and AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF (QBSF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MARU achieves a 8.21% return, which is significantly higher than QBSF's 2.42% return.

MARU

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: 3.79%
• YTD: 8.21%
• 6M: 7.97%
• 1Y: 19.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QBSF

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 0.58%
• YTD: 2.42%
• 6M: 3.38%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MARU vs. QBSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MARU AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Mar ETF	8.21%	7.95%
QBSF AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF	2.42%	4.75%

Correlation

The correlation between MARU and QBSF is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2025	0.82

Return for Risk

MARU vs. QBSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

MARU

MARU Risk / Return Rank: 62
MARU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
MARU Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
MARU Omega Ratio Rank: 62
MARU Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
MARU Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

MARU vs. QBSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Mar ETF (MARU) and AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF (QBSF). 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.

	MARU	QBSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.05	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.71	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MARU	QBSF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.04	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.45	2.89	-1.45

Drawdowns

MARU vs. QBSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MARU drawdown since its inception was -8.50%, which is greater than QBSF's maximum drawdown of -1.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MARU and QBSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	MARU	QBSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.50%	-1.58%	-6.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.56%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.22%	-0.07%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.34%	-0.22%	-1.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.71%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	MARU	QBSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.38%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.47%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.80%	2.74%	+7.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.76%	2.74%	+9.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.76%	2.74%	+9.02%

MARU vs. QBSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

MARU has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than QBSF's 0.64% expense ratio.

Dividends

MARU vs. QBSF - Dividend Comparison

Neither MARU nor QBSF has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MARU and QBSF in my portfolio?

MARU and QBSF have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, MARU or QBSF?

On fees, QBSF is cheaper at 0.64% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, MARU or QBSF?

QBSF is cheaper with a 0.64% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for MARU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MARU or QBSF?

MARU and QBSF have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between MARU and QBSF?

Their fees differ too: 0.74% for MARU and 0.64% for QBSF.