QB vs. TMAR
QB (ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF) and TMAR (FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March) are both Defined Outcome funds - QB tracks the Nasdaq-100 while TMAR tracks the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) Price Return. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, QB returned 18.83% vs 21.30% for TMAR. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QB charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for TMAR.
Performance
QB vs. TMAR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QB achieves a 12.67% return, which is significantly higher than TMAR's 11.72% return.
QB
- 1D
- 0.47%
- 1M
- 3.50%
- 6M
- 11.39%
- YTD
- 12.67%
- 1Y
- 18.83%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
TMAR
- 1D
- 0.84%
- 1M
- -1.05%
- 6M
- 10.89%
- YTD
- 11.72%
- 1Y
- 21.30%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
QB vs. TMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF | 12.67% | 6.10% |
TMAR FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March | 11.72% | 9.09% |
Correlation
The correlation between QB and TMAR is 0.63, 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 | 0.63 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025 | 0.62 |
The correlation between QB and TMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
QB vs. TMAR — Risk / Return Rank
QB
TMAR
QB vs. TMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB) and FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR). 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.
| QB | TMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.81 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.27 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.64 | 1.44 | +0.19 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.44 | 4.56 | +0.88 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 26.25 | 18.23 | +8.02 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
QB vs. TMAR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QB drawdown since its inception was -3.47%, smaller than the maximum TMAR drawdown of -9.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QB and TMAR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QB | TMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -3.47% | -9.93% | +6.46% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.47% | -4.69% | +1.22% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -3.39% | +3.39% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.42% | -0.81% | +0.39% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.72% | 1.17% | -0.45% |
Volatility
QB vs. TMAR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB) is 2.86%, while FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR) has a volatility of 5.35%. This indicates that QB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QB | TMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.86% | 5.35% | -2.49% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.82% | 10.60% | -4.78% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 7.03% | 11.37% | -4.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.93% | 12.46% | -5.53% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.93% | 12.46% | -5.53% |
QB vs. TMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison
QB has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is lower than TMAR's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
QB vs. TMAR - Dividend Comparison
QB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.77%, while TMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF | 0.77% | 0.48% |
TMAR FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
QB and TMAR have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
TMAR has higher volatility (5.35%) compared to QB (2.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QB dropped -3.47% vs TMAR's -9.93%.
On 1-year performance, TMAR leads with 21.30% vs 18.83% for QB. On fees, QB is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, QB has been the lower-risk option at 2.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, TMAR has performed better with a 21.30% return vs 18.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
QB is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for TMAR.
QB has the higher dividend yield at 0.77%, compared with 0.00% for TMAR.
QB tracks Nasdaq-100, while TMAR tracks iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) Price Return. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for QB and 0.95% for TMAR.
QB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.69 vs 1.88), 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 QB and TMAR
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