NAPR vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NAPR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. NAPR is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, NAPR returned 10.10%/yr vs 12.13%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NAPR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

NAPR vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April (NAPR) 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, NAPR achieves a 10.51% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

NAPR

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 2.09%
• YTD: 10.51%
• 6M: 11.15%
• 1Y: 18.45%
• 3Y*: 13.26%
• 5Y*: 10.10%
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 2.81%
• YTD: 13.06%
• 6M: 14.01%
• 1Y: 23.38%
• 3Y*: 16.73%
• 5Y*: 12.13%
• 10Y*: —

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

NAPR vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
NAPR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April	10.51%	6.56%	13.29%	30.60%	-12.13%	8.48%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-16.56%	12.31%

Correlation

The correlation between NAPR and QMAR is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2021	0.93

The correlation between NAPR and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

NAPR vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NAPR	QMAR
Technology	50.7%	54.2%
Communication Services	15.8%	15.5%
Consumer Cyclical	12.5%	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	8.7%	7.6%
Healthcare	5.1%	4.2%
Industrials	3.3%	2.8%
Utilities	1.6%	1.4%
Basic Materials	1.3%	1.2%
Energy	0.7%	0.6%
Financial Services	0.2%	0.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.1%

Return for Risk

NAPR vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NAPR

NAPR Risk / Return Rank: 98
NAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
NAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
NAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 98
NAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
NAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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: 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.

NAPR vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April (NAPR) 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.

	NAPR	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.78	3.86	+0.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	8.66	6.05	+2.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.18	1.93	+0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	14.95	7.31	+7.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	84.84	52.66	+32.19
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NAPR vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NAPR Sharpe Ratio is 4.78, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NAPR 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

	NAPR	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.78	3.86	+0.92
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90	0.87	+0.03
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.07	0.91	+0.16

Drawdowns

NAPR vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NAPR drawdown since its inception was -16.53%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NAPR and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	NAPR	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.53%	-19.83%	+3.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.24%	-3.21%	+1.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.52%	-15.91%	+1.39%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.53%	-19.83%	+3.30%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.12%	-0.19%	+0.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.28%	-3.28%	+1.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.22%	0.45%	-0.23%

Volatility

NAPR vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April (NAPR) is 1.10%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 1.27%. This indicates that NAPR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NAPR	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.10%	1.27%	-0.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.82%	4.85%	-2.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.89%	6.09%	-2.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.27%	13.97%	-2.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.61%	13.85%	-3.24%

NAPR vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

NAPR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

NAPR vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither NAPR nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NAPR and QMAR in my portfolio?

NAPR and QMAR have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NAPR or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to NAPR (1.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NAPR dropped -16.53% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, NAPR or QMAR?

On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 12.13% vs 10.10% for NAPR. On fees, NAPR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, NAPR has been the lower-risk option at 1.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NAPR or QMAR?

Over the 5-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 12.13% return vs 10.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NAPR or QMAR?

NAPR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between NAPR and QMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NAPR and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NAPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.78 vs 3.86), 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.