QMAR vs. BALQ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) and BALQ (iShares Nasdaq Premium Income Active ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. Both are actively managed. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QMAR charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for BALQ.

Performance

QMAR vs. BALQ - 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 iShares Nasdaq Premium Income Active ETF (BALQ). 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 BALQ's 18.59% return.

QMAR

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

BALQ

• 1D: -3.11%
• 1M: -0.12%
• YTD: 18.59%
• 6M: 17.39%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QMAR vs. BALQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.40%	0.92%
BALQ iShares Nasdaq Premium Income Active ETF	18.59%	0.04%

Correlation

The correlation between QMAR and BALQ is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 3, 2025	0.91

Return for Risk

QMAR vs. BALQ — 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

BALQ

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. BALQ - 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 iShares Nasdaq Premium Income Active ETF (BALQ). 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	BALQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.19	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.77	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.74	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.49	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	39.78	—	—

Drawdowns

QMAR vs. BALQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QMAR drawdown since its inception was -19.83%, which is greater than BALQ's maximum drawdown of -11.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMAR and BALQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	QMAR	BALQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.83%	-11.79%	-8.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.21%	—	—
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	-1.65%	-3.71%	+2.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.26%	-2.40%	-0.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.52%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	QMAR	BALQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.92%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.59%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.55%	20.62%	-14.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.01%	20.62%	-6.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.83%	20.62%	-6.79%

QMAR vs. BALQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

QMAR has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than BALQ's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

QMAR vs. BALQ - Dividend Comparison

QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BALQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.76%.

Position	TTM	2025
BALQ iShares Nasdaq Premium Income Active ETF	4.76%	0.95%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QMAR and BALQ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, QMAR and BALQ move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, QMAR or BALQ?

On fees, BALQ is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, QMAR or BALQ?

BALQ is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

BALQ has the higher dividend yield at 4.76%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between QMAR and BALQ?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QMAR and 0.35% for BALQ.