NBFR vs. QMAR

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

NBFR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed 10 Buffer ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - NBFR 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. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NBFR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

NBFR vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed 10 Buffer ETF (NBFR) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

NBFR

• 1D: 0.57%
• 1M: 2.57%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: 0.95%
• 6M: 12.30%
• YTD: 12.87%
• 1Y: 19.74%
• 3Y*: 15.79%
• 5Y*: 11.38%
• 10Y*: —

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

NBFR vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
NBFR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed 10 Buffer ETF	7.07%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	12.30%

Correlation

The correlation between NBFR and QMAR is 0.86, 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 Feb 24, 2026	0.86

Return for Risk

NBFR vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NBFR

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 96
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
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.

NBFR vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed 10 Buffer ETF (NBFR) 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.

	NBFR	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.99	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	4.49	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.68	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	6.17	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	34.68	—

Drawdowns

NBFR vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBFR drawdown since its inception was -5.85%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBFR and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	NBFR	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.85%	-19.83%	+13.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-3.21%	—
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	-1.16%	-0.35%	-0.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.63%	-3.24%	+1.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.57%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	NBFR	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	2.79%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	5.77%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.70%	6.62%	+9.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.70%	14.02%	+1.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.70%	13.79%	+1.91%

NBFR vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

NBFR vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

NBFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.02%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM
NBFR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed 10 Buffer ETF	0.02%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NBFR and QMAR in my portfolio?

NBFR and QMAR have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, NBFR or QMAR?

On fees, NBFR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, NBFR or QMAR?

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

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

NBFR has the higher dividend yield at 0.02%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between NBFR and QMAR?

NBFR 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 NBFR and 0.90% for QMAR.