MARU vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MARU (AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Mar ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - MARU is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) Price Return, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. MARU is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past year, MARU returned 19.96% vs 23.15% for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MARU charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

MARU vs. QMAR - 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 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, MARU achieves a 8.21% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.03% return.

MARU

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

QMAR

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 2.51%
• YTD: 13.03%
• 6M: 13.97%
• 1Y: 23.15%
• 3Y*: 16.71%
• 5Y*: 12.12%
• 10Y*: —

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

MARU vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MARU AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Mar ETF	8.21%	12.53%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.03%	11.45%

Correlation

The correlation between MARU and QMAR is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 4, 2025	0.86

The correlation between MARU and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MARU vs. QMAR — 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

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: 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.

MARU vs. QMAR - 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 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.

	MARU	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	3.82	-1.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	6.00	-3.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.92	-0.56
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.05	7.24	-4.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.71	52.23	-40.51
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MARU vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MARU Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MARU 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

	MARU	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.04	3.82	-1.78
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.45	0.91	+0.54

Drawdowns

MARU vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MARU drawdown since its inception was -8.50%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MARU and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	MARU	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.50%	-19.83%	+11.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.56%	-3.21%	-3.35%
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	-0.22%	-0.21%	-0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.34%	-3.28%	+1.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.71%	0.45%	+1.26%

Volatility

MARU vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Mar ETF (MARU) has a higher volatility of 2.38% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 1.27%. This indicates that MARU'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

	MARU	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.38%	1.27%	+1.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.47%	4.85%	+2.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.80%	6.08%	+3.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.76%	13.96%	-2.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.76%	13.85%	-2.09%

MARU vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

MARU has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

MARU vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither MARU nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MARU and QMAR in my portfolio?

MARU and QMAR have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MARU or QMAR?

MARU has higher volatility (2.38%) compared to QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MARU dropped -8.50% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, MARU or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 23.15% vs 19.96% for MARU. On fees, MARU is cheaper at 0.74% 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, MARU or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 23.15% return vs 19.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MARU or QMAR?

MARU is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between MARU and QMAR?

MARU is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: AllianzIM and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for MARU and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.82 vs 2.04), 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.