QMAR vs. CBXA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) and CBXA (Calamos Bitcoin 90 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - April) are both exchange-traded funds - QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust, while CBXA is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the CBOE Bitcoin US ETF Index. QMAR is actively managed, while CBXA is passively managed. Over the past year, QMAR returned 20.76% vs -22.76% for CBXA. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QMAR charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for CBXA.

Performance

QMAR vs. CBXA - 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 Calamos Bitcoin 90 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CBXA). 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 higher than CBXA's -21.17% return.

QMAR

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

CBXA

• 1D: -1.11%
• 1M: -5.76%
• YTD: -21.17%
• 6M: -21.33%
• 1Y: -22.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QMAR vs. CBXA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.40%	25.15%
CBXA Calamos Bitcoin 90 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - April	-21.17%	9.67%

Correlation

The correlation between QMAR and CBXA is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 7, 2025	0.46

Return for Risk

QMAR vs. CBXA — 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

CBXA

CBXA Risk / Return Rank: 1
CBXA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
CBXA Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
CBXA Omega Ratio Rank: 1
CBXA Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
CBXA Martin Ratio Rank: 1

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. CBXA - 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 Calamos Bitcoin 90 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CBXA). 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	CBXA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.19	-1.26	+4.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.77	-1.72	+6.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.74	0.79	+0.96
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.49	-0.79	+7.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	39.78	-1.48	+41.26

QMAR vs. CBXA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.19, which is higher than the CBXA Sharpe Ratio of -1.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QMAR and CBXA, 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. CBXA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QMAR drawdown since its inception was -19.83%, smaller than the maximum CBXA drawdown of -28.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMAR and CBXA.

Drawdown Indicators

	QMAR	CBXA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.83%	-28.98%	+9.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.21%	-28.98%	+25.77%
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%	-28.23%	+26.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.26%	-9.48%	+6.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.52%	15.43%	-14.91%

Volatility

QMAR vs. CBXA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) is 2.92%, while Calamos Bitcoin 90 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CBXA) has a volatility of 4.12%. This indicates that QMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CBXA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QMAR	CBXA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.92%	4.12%	-1.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.59%	14.95%	-9.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.55%	18.12%	-11.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.01%	17.01%	-3.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.83%	17.01%	-3.18%

QMAR vs. CBXA - Expense Ratio Comparison

QMAR has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than CBXA's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

QMAR vs. CBXA - Dividend Comparison

QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CBXA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.50%.

Position	TTM	2025
CBXA Calamos Bitcoin 90 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - April	2.50%	1.97%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QMAR and CBXA in my portfolio?

QMAR and CBXA have a correlation of 0.46, 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 CBXA?

CBXA has higher volatility (4.12%) compared to QMAR (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QMAR dropped -19.83% vs CBXA's -28.98%.

Which ETF is better, QMAR or CBXA?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 20.76% vs -22.76% for CBXA. On fees, CBXA is cheaper at 0.69% 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 CBXA?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 20.76% return vs -22.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QMAR or CBXA?

CBXA is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

CBXA has the higher dividend yield at 2.50%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between QMAR and CBXA?

QMAR is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while CBXA is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Calamos. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QMAR and 0.69% for CBXA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs -1.26), 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.