QDEC vs. FMAR

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) and FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (FMAR).

QDEC and FMAR are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. QDEC is an actively managed fund by FT Vest. It was launched on Dec 18, 2020. FMAR is an actively managed fund by FT Vest. It was launched on Mar 19, 2021.

Performance

QDEC vs. FMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) and FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (FMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

QDEC vs. FMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QDEC FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December	-3.29%	18.12%	16.40%	29.29%	-22.26%	15.34%
FMAR FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March	2.16%	9.69%	14.61%	20.39%	-5.51%	11.38%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QDEC achieves a -3.29% return, which is significantly lower than FMAR's 2.16% return.

QDEC

• 1D: 2.74%
• 1M: -2.75%
• YTD: -3.29%
• 6M: 1.11%
• 1Y: 20.31%
• 3Y*: 14.90%
• 5Y*: 8.67%
• 10Y*: —

FMAR

• 1D: 1.89%
• 1M: 0.92%
• YTD: 2.16%
• 6M: 4.53%
• 1Y: 14.91%
• 3Y*: 12.98%
• 5Y*: 9.89%
• 10Y*: —

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

QDEC vs. FMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

QDEC has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than FMAR's 0.85% expense ratio.

QDEC

FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December

FMAR

FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March

Return for Risk

QDEC vs. FMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QDEC

QDEC Risk / Return Rank: 79
QDEC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
QDEC Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
QDEC Omega Ratio Rank: 78
QDEC Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
QDEC Martin Ratio Rank: 86

FMAR

FMAR Risk / Return Rank: 81
FMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
FMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
FMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 93
FMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
FMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

QDEC vs. FMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) and FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (FMAR). 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.

	QDEC	FMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	1.36	-0.02
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.07	1.99	+0.08
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.43	-0.12
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.12	1.84	+0.28
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.19	11.70	-1.50
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QDEC vs. FMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QDEC Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is comparable to the FMAR Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QDEC and FMAR, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QDEC	FMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.34	1.36	-0.02
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59	0.95	-0.36
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.62	0.98	-0.35

Correlation

The correlation between QDEC and FMAR is 0.87, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

QDEC vs. FMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither QDEC nor FMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

QDEC vs. FMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QDEC drawdown since its inception was -25.25%, which is greater than FMAR's maximum drawdown of -14.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QDEC and FMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QDEC	FMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.25%	-14.36%	-10.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.45%	-8.31%	-1.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.25%	-14.36%	-10.89%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.04%	-0.49%	-4.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.18%	-2.21%	-2.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.97%	1.30%	+0.67%

Volatility

QDEC vs. FMAR - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) has a higher volatility of 4.92% compared to FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - March (FMAR) at 2.90%. This indicates that QDEC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QDEC	FMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.92%	2.90%	+2.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.04%	3.75%	+4.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.27%	11.04%	+4.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.77%	10.49%	+4.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.77%	10.47%	+4.30%