QMAR vs. BUFQ

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) and BUFQ (FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. QMAR is actively managed, while BUFQ is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, QMAR returned 16.76%/yr vs 17.01%/yr for BUFQ. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QMAR charges 0.90%/yr vs 1.10%/yr for BUFQ.

Performance

QMAR vs. BUFQ - 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 FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QMAR achieves a 13.16% return, which is significantly higher than BUFQ's 9.57% return.

QMAR

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 2.78%
• YTD: 13.16%
• 6M: 14.21%
• 1Y: 23.95%
• 3Y*: 16.76%
• 5Y*: 12.38%
• 10Y*: —

BUFQ

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 2.67%
• YTD: 9.57%
• 6M: 10.28%
• 1Y: 22.53%
• 3Y*: 17.01%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QMAR vs. BUFQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.16%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	0.92%
BUFQ FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF	9.57%	14.03%	16.41%	35.51%	0.75%

Correlation

The correlation between QMAR and BUFQ is 0.89, 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	0.89
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 17, 2022	0.93

The correlation between QMAR and BUFQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

QMAR vs. BUFQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QMAR	BUFQ
Technology	54.2%	54.2%
Communication Services	15.5%	15.5%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	7.6%
Healthcare	4.2%	4.2%
Industrials	2.8%	2.8%
Utilities	1.4%	1.4%
Basic Materials	1.2%	1.2%
Energy	0.6%	0.6%
Financial Services	0.2%	0.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.1%

Return for Risk

QMAR vs. BUFQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

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: 98

BUFQ

BUFQ Risk / Return Rank: 86
BUFQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
BUFQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
BUFQ Omega Ratio Rank: 87
BUFQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
BUFQ 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.

QMAR vs. BUFQ - 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 FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ). 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.

	QMAR	BUFQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.95	2.72	+1.23
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	6.18	4.03	+2.16
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.96	1.55	+0.41
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.61	4.25	+3.36
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	54.94	21.52	+33.42
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QMAR vs. BUFQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.95, which is higher than the BUFQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QMAR and BUFQ, 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

	QMAR	BUFQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.95	2.72	+1.23
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.91	1.43	-0.52

Drawdowns

QMAR vs. BUFQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QMAR drawdown since its inception was -19.83%, which is greater than BUFQ's maximum drawdown of -15.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMAR and BUFQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	QMAR	BUFQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.83%	-15.74%	-4.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.21%	-5.39%	+2.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.91%	-15.74%	-0.17%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.83%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.09%	0.00%	-0.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.29%	-2.31%	-0.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.44%	1.06%	-0.62%

Volatility

QMAR vs. BUFQ - Volatility Comparison

FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a higher volatility of 1.27% compared to FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ) at 1.17%. This indicates that QMAR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BUFQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QMAR	BUFQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.27%	1.17%	+0.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.84%	6.42%	-1.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.09%	8.31%	-2.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.97%	13.35%	+0.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.86%	13.35%	+0.51%

QMAR vs. BUFQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

QMAR has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFQ's 1.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

QMAR vs. BUFQ - Dividend Comparison

Neither QMAR nor BUFQ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QMAR and BUFQ in my portfolio?

QMAR and BUFQ have a correlation of 0.89, 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 BUFQ?

QMAR has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to BUFQ (1.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QMAR dropped -19.83% vs BUFQ's -15.74%.

Which ETF is better, QMAR or BUFQ?

On 3-year performance, BUFQ leads with 17.01% vs 16.76% for QMAR. On fees, QMAR is cheaper at 0.90% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QMAR or BUFQ?

Over the 3-year period, BUFQ has performed better with a 17.01% return vs 16.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QMAR or BUFQ?

QMAR is cheaper with a 0.90% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for BUFQ.

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

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

What is the main difference between QMAR and BUFQ?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QMAR and 1.10% for BUFQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.95 vs 2.72), 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.