PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
PAUG vs. QMAR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

PAUG vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PAUG achieves a 4.92% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.


PAUG

1D
-0.04%
1M
1.57%
YTD
4.92%
6M
5.53%
1Y
14.97%
3Y*
14.49%
5Y*
9.17%
10Y*

QMAR

1D
-0.09%
1M
2.81%
YTD
13.06%
6M
14.01%
1Y
23.38%
3Y*
16.73%
5Y*
12.13%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

PAUG vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
PAUG
Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - August
4.92%12.34%15.37%17.71%-6.85%5.49%
QMAR
FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March
13.06%10.89%16.11%35.47%-16.56%12.31%

Correlation

The correlation between PAUG and QMAR is 0.83, 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

0.83

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.81

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.84

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2021

0.83

The correlation between PAUG and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

PAUG vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
PAUG
QMAR

Technology

36.2%
54.2%

Financial Services

11.9%
0.2%

Communication Services

10.9%
15.5%

Consumer Cyclical

10.1%
12.2%

Healthcare

8.4%
4.2%

Industrials

8.1%
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

4.9%
7.6%

Energy

3.5%
0.6%

Utilities

2.3%
1.4%

Real Estate

1.9%
0.1%

Basic Materials

1.8%
1.2%

Technology

PAUG
36.2%
QMAR
54.2%

Financial Services

PAUG
11.9%
QMAR
0.2%

Communication Services

PAUG
10.9%
QMAR
15.5%

Consumer Cyclical

PAUG
10.1%
QMAR
12.2%

Healthcare

PAUG
8.4%
QMAR
4.2%

Industrials

PAUG
8.1%
QMAR
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

PAUG
4.9%
QMAR
7.6%

Energy

PAUG
3.5%
QMAR
0.6%

Utilities

PAUG
2.3%
QMAR
1.4%

Real Estate

PAUG
1.9%
QMAR
0.1%

Basic Materials

PAUG
1.8%
QMAR
1.2%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

PAUG vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

PAUG
PAUG Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
PAUG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PAUG Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
PAUG Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
PAUG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
PAUG Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
Martin Ratio Rank

QMAR
QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 9696
Overall Rank
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9595
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 9797
Sortino Ratio Rank
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 9797
Omega Ratio Rank
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 9797
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

PAUG vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - August (PAUG) 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.


PAUGQMARDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.17

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.06

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.58

1.93

-0.36

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.80

7.31

-3.51

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

20.75

52.66

-31.91

PAUG vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PAUG Sharpe Ratio is 2.69, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PAUG 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


PAUGQMARDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.69

3.86

-1.17

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.06

0.87

+0.19

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.88

0.91

-0.03

Drawdowns

PAUG vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PAUG drawdown since its inception was -17.88%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PAUG and QMAR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


PAUGQMARDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-17.88%

-19.83%

+1.95%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.96%

-3.21%

-0.75%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-10.45%

-15.91%

+5.46%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-11.76%

-19.83%

+8.07%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.06%

-0.19%

+0.13%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.81%

-3.28%

+1.47%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.72%

0.45%

+0.27%

Volatility

PAUG vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - August (PAUG) is 0.58%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 1.27%. This indicates that PAUG 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


PAUGQMARDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.58%

1.27%

-0.69%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.18%

4.85%

-0.67%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.60%

6.09%

-0.49%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.71%

13.97%

-5.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.60%

13.85%

-3.25%

PAUG vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

PAUG vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither PAUG nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
PAUG
Innovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETF - August
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%1.33%
QMAR
FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


PAUG and QMAR have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

QMAR has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to PAUG (0.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PAUG dropped -17.88% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 12.13% vs 9.17% for PAUG. On fees, PAUG is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, PAUG has been the lower-risk option at 0.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 12.13% return vs 9.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

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

PAUG 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 PAUG and 0.90% for QMAR.

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 2.69), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for PAUG and QMAR

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer