QCJL vs. QMAR

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

QCJL (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both Nasdaq-100 funds from First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QCJL returned 12.59% vs 19.34% for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.88 means they have usually moved in the same direction. Both charge a 0.90% expense ratio.

Performance

QCJL vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) 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, QCJL achieves a 7.80% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.48% return.

QCJL

• 1D: 1.07%
• 1M: 2.07%
• 6M: 7.46%
• YTD: 7.80%
• 1Y: 12.59%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.58%

QMAR

• 1D: 0.78%
• 1M: 1.44%
• 6M: 12.77%
• YTD: 13.48%
• 1Y: 19.34%
• 3Y*: 15.88%
• 5Y*: 11.25%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.30%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
QCJL FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July	$1.69M	$1.42M	$649.89K
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	$351.92K	$318.87K	$437.43K

QCJL vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QCJL FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July	7.80%	13.10%	4.38%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.48%	10.89%	6.82%

Correlation

The correlation between QCJL and QMAR is 0.82, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 22, 2024	0.88

The correlation between QCJL and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QCJL vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

QCJL

QCJL Risk / Return Rank: 85
QCJL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
QCJL Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
QCJL Omega Ratio Rank: 88
QCJL Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
QCJL Martin Ratio Rank: 89

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QCJL vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) 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.

	QCJL	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	2.79	-0.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.14	4.19	-1.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.61	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.16	6.05	-2.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.29	28.32	-13.03

QCJL vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCJL Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCJL 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

QCJL vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCJL drawdown since its inception was -11.18%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCJL and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCJL	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.18%	-19.83%	+8.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.00%	-3.21%	-0.79%
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	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.01%	-3.21%	+2.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.83%	0.68%	+0.15%

Volatility

QCJL vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) have volatilities of 2.62% and 2.66%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCJL	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.62%	2.66%	-0.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.72%	6.22%	-1.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.00%	7.00%	-1.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.26%	14.05%	-4.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.26%	13.74%	-4.48%

QCJL vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both QCJL and QMAR have an expense ratio of 0.90%.

Dividends

QCJL vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither QCJL nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCJL and QMAR in my portfolio?

QCJL and QMAR have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QCJL or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (2.66%) compared to QCJL (2.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCJL dropped -11.18% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, QCJL or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 19.34% vs 12.59% for QCJL. Both ETFs have the same 0.90% expense ratio. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCJL or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 19.34% return vs 12.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCJL or QMAR?

QCJL and QMAR have the same expense ratio: 0.90% per year.

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

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.79 vs 2.11), 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.