NAUG vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

NAUG (Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - NAUG is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Innovator, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, NAUG returned 15.53% vs 19.88% for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NAUG charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

NAUG vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF (NAUG) 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, NAUG achieves a 6.54% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.74% return.

NAUG

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 0.19%
• YTD: 6.54%
• 6M: 6.18%
• 1Y: 15.53%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: 0.38%
• 1M: -0.86%
• YTD: 11.74%
• 6M: 11.57%
• 1Y: 19.88%
• 3Y*: 15.97%
• 5Y*: 11.38%
• 10Y*: —

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

NAUG vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NAUG Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF	6.54%	14.81%	5.68%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.74%	10.89%	7.17%

Correlation

The correlation between NAUG and QMAR is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2024	0.93

The correlation between NAUG and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NAUG vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NAUG

NAUG Risk / Return Rank: 78
NAUG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
NAUG Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
NAUG Omega Ratio Rank: 82
NAUG Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
NAUG Martin Ratio Rank: 83

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
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.

NAUG vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	NAUG	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.16	3.07	-0.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.04	4.58	-1.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.71	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.06	6.21	-3.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.90	36.83	-21.93

NAUG vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NAUG Sharpe Ratio is 2.16, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NAUG 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

NAUG vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NAUG drawdown since its inception was -12.88%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NAUG and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	NAUG	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.88%	-19.83%	+6.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.10%	-3.21%	-1.89%
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	-0.29%	-1.35%	+1.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.20%	-3.26%	+2.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.04%	0.54%	+0.50%

Volatility

NAUG vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF (NAUG) is 1.32%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 2.92%. This indicates that NAUG 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

	NAUG	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.32%	2.92%	-1.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.46%	5.60%	-0.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.22%	6.51%	+0.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.12%	14.01%	-2.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.12%	13.82%	-2.70%

NAUG vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

NAUG vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither NAUG nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NAUG and QMAR in my portfolio?

NAUG and QMAR have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NAUG or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (2.92%) compared to NAUG (1.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NAUG dropped -12.88% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, NAUG or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 19.88% vs 15.53% for NAUG. On fees, NAUG is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, NAUG has been the lower-risk option at 1.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NAUG or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 19.88% return vs 15.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NAUG or QMAR?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between NAUG and QMAR?

NAUG is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NAUG and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.07 vs 2.16), 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.