MSLC vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MSLC (Morgan Stanley Pathway Large Cap Equity ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - MSLC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Morgan Stanley, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MSLC returned 19.11% vs 20.76% for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MSLC charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

MSLC vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Morgan Stanley Pathway Large Cap Equity ETF (MSLC) 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, MSLC achieves a 6.31% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.40% return.

MSLC

• 1D: -1.16%
• 1M: -1.23%
• YTD: 6.31%
• 6M: 5.41%
• 1Y: 19.11%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -1.06%
• 1M: -0.77%
• YTD: 11.40%
• 6M: 11.38%
• 1Y: 20.76%
• 3Y*: 15.65%
• 5Y*: 11.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

MSLC vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MSLC Morgan Stanley Pathway Large Cap Equity ETF	6.31%	15.68%	-3.29%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.40%	10.89%	-0.93%

Correlation

The correlation between MSLC 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 Dec 9, 2024	0.87

The correlation between MSLC and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MSLC vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

MSLC

MSLC Risk / Return Rank: 49
MSLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
MSLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
MSLC Omega Ratio Rank: 47
MSLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
MSLC Martin Ratio Rank: 55

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

MSLC vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Morgan Stanley Pathway Large Cap Equity ETF (MSLC) 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.

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.

	MSLC	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.56	3.19	-1.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.16	4.77	-2.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.74	-0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.06	6.49	-4.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.83	39.78	-30.95

MSLC vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MSLC Sharpe Ratio is 1.56, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MSLC 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.

Drawdowns

MSLC vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MSLC drawdown since its inception was -17.86%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MSLC and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	MSLC	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.86%	-19.83%	+1.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.31%	-3.21%	-6.10%
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	-2.87%	-1.65%	-1.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.44%	-3.26%	+0.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.17%	0.52%	+1.65%

Volatility

MSLC vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

Morgan Stanley Pathway Large Cap Equity ETF (MSLC) has a higher volatility of 4.59% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 2.92%. This indicates that MSLC'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

	MSLC	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.59%	2.92%	+1.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.66%	5.59%	+4.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.33%	6.55%	+5.78%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.15%	14.01%	+3.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.15%	13.83%	+3.32%

MSLC vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

MSLC has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

MSLC vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

MSLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.02%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
MSLC Morgan Stanley Pathway Large Cap Equity ETF	2.02%	2.15%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MSLC and QMAR in my portfolio?

MSLC 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, MSLC or QMAR?

MSLC has higher volatility (4.59%) compared to QMAR (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MSLC dropped -17.86% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, MSLC or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 20.76% vs 19.11% for MSLC. On fees, MSLC is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MSLC or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 20.76% return vs 19.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MSLC or QMAR?

MSLC is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

MSLC has the higher dividend yield at 2.02%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between MSLC and QMAR?

MSLC is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Morgan Stanley and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for MSLC and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs 1.56), 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.