NVBT vs. GMAR

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

NVBT (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Nov ETF) and GMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, NVBT returned 11.95%/yr vs 11.85%/yr for GMAR. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NVBT charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for GMAR.

Performance

NVBT vs. GMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Nov ETF (NVBT) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NVBT achieves a 6.04% return, which is significantly lower than GMAR's 7.40% return.

NVBT

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: -0.89%
• YTD: 6.04%
• 6M: 5.34%
• 1Y: 15.18%
• 3Y*: 11.95%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GMAR

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: -0.26%
• YTD: 7.40%
• 6M: 7.48%
• 1Y: 13.65%
• 3Y*: 11.85%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NVBT vs. GMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
NVBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Nov ETF	6.04%	12.84%	12.03%	14.01%
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March	7.40%	9.29%	12.14%	12.40%

Correlation

The correlation between NVBT and GMAR 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	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 20, 2023	0.85

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

Return for Risk

NVBT vs. GMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NVBT

NVBT Risk / Return Rank: 66
NVBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
NVBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
NVBT Omega Ratio Rank: 69
NVBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
NVBT Martin Ratio Rank: 73

GMAR

GMAR Risk / Return Rank: 97
GMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
GMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
GMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
GMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
GMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

NVBT vs. GMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Nov ETF (NVBT) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR). 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.

	NVBT	GMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.89	3.50	-1.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.70	5.76	-3.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.87	-0.50
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.46	7.64	-5.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.85	48.91	-37.06

NVBT vs. GMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NVBT Sharpe Ratio is 1.89, which is lower than the GMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NVBT and GMAR, 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

NVBT vs. GMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NVBT drawdown since its inception was -12.90%, which is greater than GMAR's maximum drawdown of -9.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NVBT and GMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	NVBT	GMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.90%	-9.11%	-3.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.21%	-1.79%	-4.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.90%	-9.11%	-3.79%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.71%	-0.65%	-1.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.35%	-0.54%	-0.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.28%	0.28%	+1.00%

Volatility

NVBT vs. GMAR - Volatility Comparison

Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Nov ETF (NVBT) has a higher volatility of 2.86% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) at 1.42%. This indicates that NVBT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NVBT	GMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.86%	1.42%	+1.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.73%	3.26%	+3.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.06%	3.92%	+4.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.35%	6.82%	+3.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.35%	6.82%	+3.53%

NVBT vs. GMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

NVBT has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than GMAR's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

NVBT vs. GMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither NVBT nor GMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NVBT and GMAR in my portfolio?

NVBT and GMAR 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, NVBT or GMAR?

NVBT has higher volatility (2.86%) compared to GMAR (1.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NVBT dropped -12.90% vs GMAR's -9.11%.

Which ETF is better, NVBT or GMAR?

On 3-year performance, NVBT leads with 11.95% vs 11.85% for GMAR. On fees, NVBT is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, GMAR has been the lower-risk option at 1.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NVBT or GMAR?

Over the 3-year period, NVBT has performed better with a 11.95% return vs 11.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NVBT or GMAR?

NVBT is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for GMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NVBT or GMAR?

NVBT and GMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between NVBT and GMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Allianz and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for NVBT and 0.85% for GMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.50 vs 1.89), 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.