NOVP vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

NOVP (PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - November) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - NOVP is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by PGIM, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, NOVP returned 16.66% vs 22.68% for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NOVP charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

NOVP vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - November (NOVP) 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, NOVP achieves a 6.63% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 12.60% return.

NOVP

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 0.96%
• YTD: 6.63%
• 6M: 6.56%
• 1Y: 16.66%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 0.30%
• YTD: 12.60%
• 6M: 12.67%
• 1Y: 22.68%
• 3Y*: 16.06%
• 5Y*: 11.66%
• 10Y*: —

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

NOVP vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NOVP PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - November	6.63%	12.14%	8.67%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	12.60%	10.89%	9.73%

Correlation

The correlation between NOVP and QMAR is 0.84, 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	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 22, 2024	0.87

The correlation between NOVP and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NOVP vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NOVP

NOVP Risk / Return Rank: 73
NOVP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
NOVP Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
NOVP Omega Ratio Rank: 80
NOVP Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
NOVP Martin Ratio Rank: 77

QMAR

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

NOVP vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - November (NOVP) 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.

	NOVP	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.26	3.53	-1.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.21	5.35	-2.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.84	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.92	7.09	-4.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.20	44.33	-30.13

NOVP vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NOVP Sharpe Ratio is 2.26, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NOVP 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

NOVP vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NOVP drawdown since its inception was -11.79%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NOVP and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	NOVP	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.79%	-19.83%	+8.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.74%	-3.21%	-2.53%
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	-0.54%	-0.59%	+0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.02%	-3.26%	+2.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.18%	0.51%	+0.67%

Volatility

NOVP vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - November (NOVP) is 2.56%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 2.72%. This indicates that NOVP 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

	NOVP	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.56%	2.72%	-0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.36%	5.48%	+0.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.41%	6.46%	+0.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.64%	14.01%	-4.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.64%	13.83%	-4.19%

NOVP vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

NOVP has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

NOVP vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither NOVP nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NOVP and QMAR in my portfolio?

NOVP and QMAR have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NOVP or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (2.72%) compared to NOVP (2.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NOVP dropped -11.79% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, NOVP or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 22.68% vs 16.66% for NOVP. On fees, NOVP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, NOVP has been the lower-risk option at 2.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NOVP or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 22.68% return vs 16.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NOVP or QMAR?

NOVP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between NOVP and QMAR?

NOVP is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: PGIM and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for NOVP and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.53 vs 2.26), 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.