QFLR vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QFLR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QFLR returned 26.98% vs 23.38% for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QFLR charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

QFLR vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) 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, QFLR achieves a 6.90% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

QFLR

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 3.99%
• YTD: 6.90%
• 6M: 5.88%
• 1Y: 26.98%
• 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*: —

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

QFLR vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	6.90%	17.27%	16.64%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	10.89%	15.08%

Correlation

The correlation between QFLR and QMAR is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 26, 2024	0.83

The correlation between QFLR and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

QFLR vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QFLR	QMAR
Technology	50.8%	54.2%
Communication Services	18.4%	15.5%
Consumer Cyclical	12.1%	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	9.2%	7.6%
Healthcare	3.2%	4.2%
Industrials	2.8%	2.8%
Utilities	1.5%	1.4%
Energy	1.1%	0.6%
Financial Services	0.9%	0.2%
Basic Materials	0.0%	1.2%
Real Estate	-	0.1%

Return for Risk

QFLR vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QFLR

QFLR Risk / Return Rank: 74
QFLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QFLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
QFLR Omega Ratio Rank: 74
QFLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
QFLR Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

QFLR vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) 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.

	QFLR	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.41	3.86	-1.46
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.26	6.05	-2.79
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.93	-0.49
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.56	7.31	-3.75
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	15.19	52.66	-37.47
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QFLR vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QFLR Sharpe Ratio is 2.41, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QFLR 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

	QFLR	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.41	3.86	-1.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.40	0.91	+0.49

Drawdowns

QFLR vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QFLR drawdown since its inception was -13.97%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QFLR and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QFLR	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.97%	-19.83%	+5.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.61%	-3.21%	-4.40%
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	-0.48%	-0.19%	-0.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.50%	-3.28%	+0.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.78%	0.45%	+1.33%

Volatility

QFLR vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) has a higher volatility of 2.53% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 1.27%. This indicates that QFLR'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.

Volatility by Period

	QFLR	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.53%	1.27%	+1.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.05%	4.85%	+3.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.28%	6.09%	+5.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.62%	13.97%	-1.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.62%	13.85%	-1.23%

QFLR vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

QFLR has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

QFLR vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither QFLR nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	0.00%	0.02%	0.03%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QFLR and QMAR in my portfolio?

QFLR and QMAR have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QFLR or QMAR?

QFLR has higher volatility (2.53%) compared to QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QFLR dropped -13.97% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, QFLR or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QFLR leads with 26.98% vs 23.38% for QMAR. On fees, QFLR is cheaper at 0.89% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, QFLR or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QFLR has performed better with a 26.98% return vs 23.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QFLR or QMAR?

QFLR is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between QFLR and QMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for QFLR and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 2.41), 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.