PRAY vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PRAY (FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - PRAY is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the NONE, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. PRAY is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, PRAY returned 16.61%/yr vs 16.73%/yr for QMAR. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PRAY charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

PRAY vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF (PRAY) 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, PRAY achieves a 14.78% return, which is significantly higher than QMAR's 13.06% return.

PRAY

• 1D: -0.81%
• 1M: 3.83%
• YTD: 14.78%
• 6M: 14.02%
• 1Y: 21.06%
• 3Y*: 16.61%
• 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)

PRAY vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
PRAY FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF	14.78%	9.08%	13.02%	20.02%	-13.49%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-15.14%

Correlation

The correlation between PRAY and QMAR is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 9, 2022	0.76

The correlation between PRAY and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

PRAY vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PRAY	QMAR
Technology	25.2%	54.2%
Industrials	15.3%	2.8%
Consumer Cyclical	14.3%	12.2%
Financial Services	12.5%	0.2%
Communication Services	8.6%	15.5%
Healthcare	7.7%	4.2%
Utilities	4.2%	1.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.0%	7.6%
Energy	3.8%	0.6%
Basic Materials	3.0%	1.2%
Real Estate	1.6%	0.1%

Return for Risk

PRAY vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

PRAY

PRAY Risk / Return Rank: 51
PRAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
PRAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
PRAY Omega Ratio Rank: 47
PRAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
PRAY Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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.

PRAY vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF (PRAY) 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.

	PRAY	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.67	3.86	-2.19
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.47	6.05	-3.58
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.93	-0.64
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.40	7.31	-4.90
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.57	52.66	-42.09
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PRAY vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PRAY Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PRAY 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

	PRAY	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.67	3.86	-2.19
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	0.91	-0.32

Drawdowns

PRAY vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PRAY drawdown since its inception was -21.40%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PRAY and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	PRAY	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.40%	-19.83%	-1.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.80%	-3.21%	-5.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.13%	-15.91%	-1.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.81%	-0.19%	-0.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.43%	-3.28%	-2.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.00%	0.45%	+1.55%

Volatility

PRAY vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF (PRAY) has a higher volatility of 4.21% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 1.27%. This indicates that PRAY's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PRAY	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.21%	1.27%	+2.94%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.58%	4.85%	+5.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.70%	6.09%	+6.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.00%	13.97%	+2.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.00%	13.85%	+2.15%

PRAY vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

PRAY has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

PRAY vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

PRAY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.60%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
PRAY FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF	0.60%	0.69%	0.76%	0.83%	1.20%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PRAY and QMAR in my portfolio?

PRAY and QMAR have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PRAY or QMAR?

PRAY has higher volatility (4.21%) compared to QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PRAY dropped -21.40% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, PRAY or QMAR?

On 3-year performance, QMAR leads with 16.73% vs 16.61% for PRAY. On fees, PRAY is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 1.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PRAY or QMAR?

Over the 3-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 16.73% return vs 16.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PRAY or QMAR?

PRAY is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

PRAY has the higher dividend yield at 0.60%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between PRAY and QMAR?

PRAY is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Faith Investor Services and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for PRAY and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 1.67), 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.