OCTT vs. XMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

OCTT (AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Oct ETF) and XMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, OCTT returned 14.15%/yr vs 11.18%/yr for XMAR. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. OCTT charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for XMAR.

Performance

OCTT vs. XMAR - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with OCTT having a 6.89% return and XMAR slightly lower at 6.65%.

OCTT

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 2.77%
• YTD: 6.89%
• 6M: 7.45%
• 1Y: 19.21%
• 3Y*: 14.15%
• 5Y*: 10.41%
• 10Y*: —

XMAR

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 1.37%
• YTD: 6.65%
• 6M: 7.38%
• 1Y: 12.89%
• 3Y*: 11.18%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

OCTT vs. XMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
OCTT AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Oct ETF	6.89%	13.86%	11.87%	17.13%
XMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March	6.65%	10.30%	10.10%	10.30%

Correlation

The correlation between OCTT and XMAR 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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2023	0.80

The correlation between OCTT and XMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

OCTT vs. XMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

OCTT

OCTT Risk / Return Rank: 78
OCTT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
OCTT Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
OCTT Omega Ratio Rank: 82
OCTT Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
OCTT Martin Ratio Rank: 82

XMAR

XMAR Risk / Return Rank: 97
XMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
XMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
XMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 98
XMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
XMAR 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.

OCTT vs. XMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Oct ETF (OCTT) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR). 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.

	OCTT	XMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.49	4.31	-1.83
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.54	7.46	-3.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	2.20	-0.71
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.32	8.76	-5.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.48	66.63	-50.15
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

OCTT vs. XMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current OCTT Sharpe Ratio is 2.49, which is lower than the XMAR Sharpe Ratio of 4.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of OCTT and XMAR, 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

	OCTT	XMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.49	4.31	-1.83
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.00	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.14	2.13	-0.99

Drawdowns

OCTT vs. XMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum OCTT drawdown since its inception was -13.49%, which is greater than XMAR's maximum drawdown of -7.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for OCTT and XMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	OCTT	XMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.49%	-7.29%	-6.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.81%	-1.48%	-4.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.04%	-7.29%	-5.75%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-13.49%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.24%	-0.16%	-0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.03%	-0.30%	-1.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.17%	0.19%	+0.98%

Volatility

OCTT vs. XMAR - Volatility Comparison

AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Oct ETF (OCTT) has a higher volatility of 1.27% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) at 0.58%. This indicates that OCTT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	OCTT	XMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.27%	0.58%	+0.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.94%	2.40%	+3.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.77%	3.01%	+4.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.43%	5.55%	+4.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.22%	5.55%	+4.67%

OCTT vs. XMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

OCTT has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than XMAR's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

OCTT vs. XMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither OCTT nor XMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both OCTT and XMAR in my portfolio?

OCTT and XMAR 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, OCTT or XMAR?

OCTT has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to XMAR (0.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, OCTT dropped -13.49% vs XMAR's -7.29%.

Which ETF is better, OCTT or XMAR?

On 3-year performance, OCTT leads with 14.15% vs 11.18% for XMAR. On fees, OCTT is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, XMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, OCTT or XMAR?

Over the 3-year period, OCTT has performed better with a 14.15% return vs 11.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, OCTT or XMAR?

OCTT is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for XMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, OCTT or XMAR?

OCTT and XMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between OCTT and XMAR?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.31 vs 2.49), 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.