QMAR vs. ABFL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) and ABFL (Abacus FCF Leaders ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust, while ABFL is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Abacus. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, QMAR returned 11.30%/yr vs 12.28%/yr for ABFL. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QMAR charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for ABFL.

Performance

QMAR vs. ABFL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) and Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QMAR achieves a 11.40% return, which is significantly lower than ABFL's 16.11% return.

QMAR

• 1D: -1.06%
• 1M: -0.77%
• YTD: 11.40%
• 6M: 11.38%
• 1Y: 20.76%
• 3Y*: 15.65%
• 5Y*: 11.30%
• 10Y*: —

ABFL

• 1D: -2.37%
• 1M: 1.40%
• YTD: 16.11%
• 6M: 13.99%
• 1Y: 20.27%
• 3Y*: 18.20%
• 5Y*: 12.28%
• 10Y*: —

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

QMAR vs. ABFL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.40%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-16.56%	12.87%
ABFL Abacus FCF Leaders ETF	16.11%	8.07%	18.26%	22.97%	-14.60%	24.85%

Correlation

The correlation between QMAR and ABFL is 0.72, 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	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2021	0.80

The correlation between QMAR and ABFL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

QMAR vs. ABFL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QMAR	ABFL
Technology	58.7%	38.4%
Communication Services	14.3%	3.3%
Consumer Cyclical	11.4%	5.7%
Consumer Defensive	6.4%	7.2%
Healthcare	3.7%	11.8%
Industrials	2.6%	20.2%
Utilities	1.2%	-
Basic Materials	1.0%	4.0%
Energy	0.5%	6.9%
Financial Services	0.2%	2.6%
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

QMAR vs. ABFL — Risk / Return Rank

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

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

ABFL

ABFL Risk / Return Rank: 46
ABFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
ABFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
ABFL Omega Ratio Rank: 36
ABFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
ABFL Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

QMAR vs. ABFL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) and Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL). 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.

	QMAR	ABFL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.19	1.25	+1.94
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.77	1.77	+3.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.74	1.22	+0.52
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.49	2.84	+3.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	39.78	9.06	+30.72

QMAR vs. ABFL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.19, which is higher than the ABFL Sharpe Ratio of 1.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QMAR and ABFL, 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

QMAR vs. ABFL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QMAR drawdown since its inception was -19.83%, smaller than the maximum ABFL drawdown of -34.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMAR and ABFL.

Drawdown Indicators

	QMAR	ABFL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.83%	-34.95%	+15.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.21%	-7.17%	+3.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.91%	-19.92%	+4.01%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.83%	-21.88%	+2.05%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.65%	-2.37%	+0.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.26%	-4.97%	+1.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.52%	2.24%	-1.72%

Volatility

QMAR vs. ABFL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) is 2.92%, while Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) has a volatility of 6.44%. This indicates that QMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ABFL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QMAR	ABFL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.92%	6.44%	-3.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.59%	12.89%	-7.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.55%	16.27%	-9.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.01%	17.29%	-3.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.83%	18.76%	-4.93%

QMAR vs. ABFL - Expense Ratio Comparison

QMAR has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than ABFL's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

QMAR vs. ABFL - Dividend Comparison

QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ABFL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.54%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ABFL Abacus FCF Leaders ETF	0.54%	0.62%	0.70%	0.94%	1.36%	9.63%	0.41%	0.72%	0.62%	0.40%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QMAR and ABFL in my portfolio?

QMAR and ABFL have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QMAR or ABFL?

ABFL has higher volatility (6.44%) compared to QMAR (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QMAR dropped -19.83% vs ABFL's -34.95%.

Which ETF is better, QMAR or ABFL?

On 5-year performance, ABFL leads with 12.28% vs 11.30% for QMAR. On fees, ABFL is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QMAR or ABFL?

Over the 5-year period, ABFL has performed better with a 12.28% return vs 11.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QMAR or ABFL?

ABFL is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

ABFL has the higher dividend yield at 0.54%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between QMAR and ABFL?

QMAR is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while ABFL is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Abacus. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QMAR and 0.49% for ABFL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs 1.25), 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.