PBQQ vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PBQQ (PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - PBQQ 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, PBQQ returned 20.98% vs 23.38% for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PBQQ charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

PBQQ vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF (PBQQ) 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, PBQQ achieves a 9.10% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

PBQQ

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 2.58%
• YTD: 9.10%
• 6M: 9.79%
• 1Y: 20.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

PBQQ vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
PBQQ PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF	9.10%	15.44%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	10.94%

Correlation

The correlation between PBQQ and QMAR is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 3, 2025	0.92

The correlation between PBQQ and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

PBQQ vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBQQ

PBQQ Risk / Return Rank: 89
PBQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
PBQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
PBQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 91
PBQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
PBQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 91

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 96
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
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.

PBQQ vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF (PBQQ) 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.

	PBQQ	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.94	3.86	-0.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.33	6.05	-1.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.93	-0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.47	7.31	-2.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.36	52.66	-31.30
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PBQQ vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBQQ Sharpe Ratio is 2.94, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBQQ 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PBQQ	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.94	3.86	-0.92
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.50	0.91	+0.60

Drawdowns

PBQQ vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBQQ drawdown since its inception was -12.92%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBQQ and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBQQ	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.92%	-19.83%	+6.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.71%	-3.21%	-1.50%
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	-0.21%	-0.19%	-0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.26%	-3.28%	+2.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.98%	0.45%	+0.53%

Volatility

PBQQ vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF (PBQQ) is 1.07%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 1.27%. This indicates that PBQQ 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

	PBQQ	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.07%	1.27%	-0.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.51%	4.85%	+0.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.18%	6.09%	+1.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.88%	13.97%	-2.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.88%	13.85%	-1.97%

PBQQ vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

PBQQ vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

PBQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
PBQQ PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF	0.01%	0.01%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PBQQ and QMAR in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, PBQQ and QMAR move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, PBQQ or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to PBQQ (1.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBQQ dropped -12.92% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, PBQQ or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 23.38% vs 20.98% for PBQQ. On fees, PBQQ is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PBQQ has been the lower-risk option at 1.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PBQQ or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 23.38% return vs 20.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PBQQ or QMAR?

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

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

PBQQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.01%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between PBQQ and QMAR?

PBQQ 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 PBQQ and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 2.94), 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.