QDTY vs. QMAR
QDTY (YieldMax Nasdaq 100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QDTY returned 39.98% vs 23.38% for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QDTY charges 1.01%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.
Performance
QDTY vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QDTY achieves a 16.37% return, which is significantly higher than QMAR's 13.06% return.
QDTY
- 1D
- 0.06%
- 1M
- 9.62%
- YTD
- 16.37%
- 6M
- 16.71%
- 1Y
- 39.98%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
QMAR
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- 2.81%
- YTD
- 13.06%
- 6M
- 14.01%
- 1Y
- 23.38%
- 3Y*
- 16.73%
- 5Y*
- 12.13%
- 10Y*
- —
QDTY vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
QDTY YieldMax Nasdaq 100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF | 16.37% | 11.37% |
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 13.06% | 7.24% |
Correlation
The correlation between QDTY and QMAR is 0.82, 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 | 0.82 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 14, 2025 | 0.84 |
The correlation between QDTY and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.
QDTY vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
QDTY
QMAR
Technology
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Consumer Defensive
Healthcare
Industrials
Utilities
Basic Materials
Energy
Financial Services
Real Estate
Technology
QDTY
QMAR
Communication Services
QDTY
QMAR
Consumer Cyclical
QDTY
QMAR
Consumer Defensive
QDTY
QMAR
Healthcare
QDTY
QMAR
Industrials
QDTY
QMAR
Utilities
QDTY
QMAR
Basic Materials
QDTY
QMAR
Energy
QDTY
QMAR
Financial Services
QDTY
QMAR
Real Estate
QDTY
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
QDTY vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank
QDTY
QMAR
QDTY vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for YieldMax Nasdaq 100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF (QDTY) 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.
| QDTY | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.65 | 3.86 | -1.21 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.41 | 6.05 | -2.64 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.46 | 1.93 | -0.47 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.62 | 7.31 | -3.69 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.27 | 52.66 | -39.39 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| QDTY | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.65 | 3.86 | -1.21 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.87 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.86 | 0.91 | -0.05 |
Drawdowns
QDTY vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QDTY drawdown since its inception was -23.45%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QDTY and QMAR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QDTY | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -23.45% | -19.83% | -3.62% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.10% | -3.21% | -7.89% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -15.91% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -19.83% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.19% | +0.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.48% | -3.28% | -1.20% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.02% | 0.45% | +2.57% |
Volatility
QDTY vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison
YieldMax Nasdaq 100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF (QDTY) has a higher volatility of 3.29% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 1.27%. This indicates that QDTY's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QDTY | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.29% | 1.27% | +2.02% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.77% | 4.85% | +6.92% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.18% | 6.09% | +9.09% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.87% | 13.97% | +11.90% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.87% | 13.85% | +12.02% |
QDTY vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison
QDTY has a 1.01% expense ratio, which is higher than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.
Dividends
QDTY vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison
QDTY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 30.90%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
QDTY YieldMax Nasdaq 100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF | 30.90% | 26.82% |
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
QDTY 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.
QDTY has higher volatility (3.29%) compared to QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QDTY dropped -23.45% vs QMAR's -19.83%.
On 1-year performance, QDTY leads with 39.98% vs 23.38% for QMAR. On fees, QMAR is cheaper at 0.90% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 1.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, QDTY has performed better with a 39.98% return vs 23.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
QMAR is cheaper with a 0.90% expense ratio, compared with 1.01% for QDTY.
QDTY has the higher dividend yield at 30.90%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.
They also come from different issuers: YieldMax and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 1.01% for QDTY and 0.90% for QMAR.
QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 2.65), 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 QDTY 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