PMAP vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

PMAP (PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - PMAP 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, PMAP returned 6.80% vs 20.76% for QMAR. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PMAP charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

PMAP vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April (PMAP) 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, PMAP achieves a 3.18% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.40% return.

PMAP

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 0.04%
• YTD: 3.18%
• 6M: 3.26%
• 1Y: 6.80%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -1.06%
• 1M: -0.77%
• YTD: 11.40%
• 6M: 11.38%
• 1Y: 20.76%
• 3Y*: 15.65%
• 5Y*: 11.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

PMAP vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
PMAP PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April	3.18%	5.29%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.40%	16.65%

Correlation

The correlation between PMAP and QMAR is 0.80, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2025	0.79

The correlation between PMAP and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

PMAP vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

PMAP

PMAP Risk / Return Rank: 99
PMAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
PMAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
PMAP Omega Ratio Rank: 99
PMAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
PMAP Martin Ratio Rank: 99

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
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.

PMAP vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April (PMAP) 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.

	PMAP	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	5.86	3.19	+2.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	11.65	4.77	+6.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.66	1.74	+0.92
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	19.59	6.49	+13.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	103.79	39.78	+64.01

PMAP vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PMAP Sharpe Ratio is 5.86, which is higher than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PMAP 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

PMAP vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PMAP drawdown since its inception was -1.75%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PMAP and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	PMAP	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.75%	-19.83%	+18.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.35%	-3.21%	+2.86%
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	-0.20%	-1.65%	+1.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.08%	-3.26%	+3.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.07%	0.52%	-0.45%

Volatility

PMAP vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April (PMAP) is 0.42%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 2.92%. This indicates that PMAP 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

	PMAP	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.42%	2.92%	-2.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.89%	5.59%	-4.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.18%	6.55%	-5.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.31%	14.01%	-11.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.31%	13.83%	-11.52%

PMAP vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

PMAP vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither PMAP nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PMAP and QMAR in my portfolio?

PMAP and QMAR have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PMAP or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (2.92%) compared to PMAP (0.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PMAP dropped -1.75% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, PMAP or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 20.76% vs 6.80% for PMAP. On fees, PMAP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PMAP has been the lower-risk option at 0.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PMAP or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 20.76% return vs 6.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PMAP or QMAR?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between PMAP and QMAR?

PMAP 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 PMAP and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PMAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.86 vs 3.19), 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.