PSFM vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PSFM (Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - PSFM 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, PSFM returned 10.00%/yr vs 12.13%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PSFM charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

PSFM vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF (PSFM) 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, PSFM achieves a 9.21% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

PSFM

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: 1.92%
• YTD: 9.21%
• 6M: 10.00%
• 1Y: 17.37%
• 3Y*: 13.46%
• 5Y*: 10.00%
• 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)

PSFM vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
PSFM Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF	9.21%	7.28%	14.18%	18.32%	-5.23%	11.65%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-16.56%	10.83%

Correlation

The correlation between PSFM and QMAR is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 5, 2021	0.87

The correlation between PSFM and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

PSFM vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PSFM	QMAR
Technology	33.2%	54.2%
Financial Services	12.5%	0.2%
Communication Services	10.3%	15.5%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	12.2%
Healthcare	9.6%	4.2%
Industrials	8.4%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	5.4%	7.6%
Energy	4.2%	0.6%
Utilities	2.6%	1.4%
Real Estate	2.0%	0.1%
Basic Materials	1.9%	1.2%

Return for Risk

PSFM vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

PSFM

PSFM Risk / Return Rank: 98
PSFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
PSFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
PSFM Omega Ratio Rank: 98
PSFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
PSFM Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

PSFM vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF (PSFM) 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.

	PSFM	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	4.37	3.86	+0.51
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	7.81	6.05	+1.76
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.03	1.93	+0.10
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	13.28	7.31	+5.98
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	70.48	52.66	+17.82
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PSFM vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PSFM Sharpe Ratio is 4.37, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PSFM 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

	PSFM	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.37	3.86	+0.51
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.95	0.87	+0.08
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.00	0.91	+0.09

Drawdowns

PSFM vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PSFM drawdown since its inception was -14.33%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PSFM and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	PSFM	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.33%	-19.83%	+5.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.31%	-3.21%	+1.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.12%	-15.91%	+1.79%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.33%	-19.83%	+5.50%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.16%	-0.19%	+0.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.27%	-3.28%	+1.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.25%	0.45%	-0.20%

Volatility

PSFM vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF (PSFM) is 0.86%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 1.27%. This indicates that PSFM 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

	PSFM	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.86%	1.27%	-0.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.88%	4.85%	-1.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.01%	6.09%	-2.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.57%	13.97%	-3.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.51%	13.85%	-3.34%

PSFM vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

PSFM has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

PSFM vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither PSFM nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PSFM and QMAR in my portfolio?

PSFM 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, PSFM or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to PSFM (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PSFM dropped -14.33% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, PSFM or QMAR?

On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 12.13% vs 10.00% for PSFM. On fees, PSFM is cheaper at 0.61% per year. On volatility, PSFM has been the lower-risk option at 0.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PSFM or QMAR?

Over the 5-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 12.13% return vs 10.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PSFM or QMAR?

PSFM is cheaper with a 0.61% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between PSFM and QMAR?

PSFM is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for PSFM and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PSFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.37 vs 3.86), 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.