PSCX vs. QMAR
PSCX (Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (December) ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - PSCX is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Pacer, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, PSCX returned 8.42%/yr vs 11.38%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PSCX charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.
Performance
PSCX vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PSCX achieves a 5.83% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 12.87% return.
PSCX
- 1D
- 0.18%
- 1M
- 1.24%
- 6M
- 4.94%
- YTD
- 5.83%
- 1Y
- 13.14%
- 3Y*
- 12.34%
- 5Y*
- 8.42%
- 10Y*
- —
QMAR
- 1D
- 0.18%
- 1M
- 0.79%
- 6M
- 12.30%
- YTD
- 12.87%
- 1Y
- 19.74%
- 3Y*
- 15.79%
- 5Y*
- 11.38%
- 10Y*
- —
PSCX vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PSCX Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (December) ETF | 5.83% | 12.08% | 13.27% | 16.57% | -7.35% | 7.10% |
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 12.87% | 10.89% | 16.11% | 35.47% | -16.56% | 12.87% |
Correlation
The correlation between PSCX and QMAR is 0.85, 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 | 0.85 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.81 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.82 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2021 | 0.81 |
The correlation between PSCX and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.
PSCX vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
PSCX
QMAR
Technology
Financial Services
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Industrials
Consumer Defensive
Energy
Utilities
Real Estate
Basic Materials
Technology
PSCX
QMAR
Financial Services
PSCX
QMAR
Communication Services
PSCX
QMAR
Consumer Cyclical
PSCX
QMAR
Healthcare
PSCX
QMAR
Industrials
PSCX
QMAR
Consumer Defensive
PSCX
QMAR
Energy
PSCX
QMAR
Utilities
PSCX
QMAR
Real Estate
PSCX
QMAR
Basic Materials
PSCX
QMAR
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
PSCX vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank
PSCX
QMAR
PSCX vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (December) ETF (PSCX) 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.
| PSCX | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.67 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.03 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.47 | 1.68 | -0.22 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.10 | 6.17 | -3.07 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 15.47 | 34.68 | -19.21 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PSCX vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PSCX drawdown since its inception was -10.20%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PSCX and QMAR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PSCX | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -10.20% | -19.83% | +9.63% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.20% | -3.21% | -0.99% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -9.61% | -15.91% | +6.30% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -10.20% | -19.83% | +9.63% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.35% | +0.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.84% | -3.24% | +1.40% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.84% | 0.57% | +0.27% |
Volatility
PSCX vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (December) ETF (PSCX) is 1.74%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 2.79%. This indicates that PSCX 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
| PSCX | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.74% | 2.79% | -1.05% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.60% | 5.77% | -1.17% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.60% | 6.62% | -1.02% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.12% | 14.02% | -6.90% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.95% | 13.79% | -6.84% |
PSCX vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison
PSCX has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.
Dividends
PSCX vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison
Neither PSCX nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
PSCX and QMAR have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
QMAR has higher volatility (2.79%) compared to PSCX (1.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PSCX dropped -10.20% vs QMAR's -19.83%.
On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 11.38% vs 8.42% for PSCX. On fees, PSCX is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, PSCX has been the lower-risk option at 1.74%. 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 11.38% return vs 8.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PSCX is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.
PSCX and QMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
PSCX is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for PSCX and 0.90% for QMAR.
QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.99 vs 2.33), 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.
Find the right allocation for PSCX 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