QMAR vs. MGC
QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) and MGC (Vanguard Mega Cap ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust, while MGC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the CRSP US Mega Cap Index. QMAR is actively managed, while MGC is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QMAR returned 12.13%/yr vs 14.70%/yr for MGC. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QMAR charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for MGC.
Performance
QMAR vs. MGC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QMAR achieves a 13.06% return, which is significantly higher than MGC's 10.80% return.
QMAR
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- 2.81%
- YTD
- 13.06%
- 6M
- 14.01%
- 1Y
- 23.38%
- 3Y*
- 16.73%
- 5Y*
- 12.13%
- 10Y*
- —
MGC
- 1D
- -0.79%
- 1M
- 5.59%
- YTD
- 10.80%
- 6M
- 10.75%
- 1Y
- 29.68%
- 3Y*
- 23.87%
- 5Y*
- 14.70%
- 10Y*
- 16.36%
QMAR vs. MGC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 13.06% | 10.89% | 16.11% | 35.47% | -16.56% | 12.31% |
MGC Vanguard Mega Cap ETF | 10.80% | 19.31% | 27.16% | 29.77% | -19.95% | 22.14% |
Correlation
The correlation between QMAR and MGC is 0.88, 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 | 0.88 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.88 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2021 | 0.90 |
The correlation between QMAR and MGC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.
QMAR vs. MGC - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
QMAR
MGC
Technology
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Consumer Defensive
Healthcare
Industrials
Utilities
Basic Materials
Energy
Financial Services
Real Estate
Technology
QMAR
MGC
Communication Services
QMAR
MGC
Consumer Cyclical
QMAR
MGC
Consumer Defensive
QMAR
MGC
Healthcare
QMAR
MGC
Industrials
QMAR
MGC
Utilities
QMAR
MGC
Basic Materials
QMAR
MGC
Energy
QMAR
MGC
Financial Services
QMAR
MGC
Real Estate
QMAR
MGC
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
QMAR vs. MGC — Risk / Return Rank
QMAR
MGC
QMAR vs. MGC - 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 Vanguard Mega Cap ETF (MGC). 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 | MGC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 3.86 | 2.42 | +1.44 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 6.05 | 3.30 | +2.76 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.93 | 1.43 | +0.50 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 7.31 | 3.03 | +4.28 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 52.66 | 13.61 | +39.05 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| QMAR | MGC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.86 | 2.42 | +1.44 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.87 | 0.86 | +0.02 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.90 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.91 | 0.60 | +0.31 |
Drawdowns
QMAR vs. MGC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QMAR drawdown since its inception was -19.83%, smaller than the maximum MGC drawdown of -51.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMAR and MGC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QMAR | MGC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.83% | -51.93% | +32.10% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.21% | -9.85% | +6.64% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.91% | -19.28% | +3.37% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.83% | -25.74% | +5.91% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -33.07% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.19% | -0.79% | +0.60% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.28% | -7.06% | +3.78% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.45% | 2.19% | -1.74% |
Volatility
QMAR vs. MGC - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) is 1.27%, while Vanguard Mega Cap ETF (MGC) has a volatility of 3.04%. This indicates that QMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MGC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QMAR | MGC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.27% | 3.04% | -1.77% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.85% | 9.27% | -4.42% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.09% | 12.32% | -6.23% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.97% | 17.27% | -3.30% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.85% | 18.21% | -4.36% |
QMAR vs. MGC - Expense Ratio Comparison
QMAR has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than MGC's 0.05% expense ratio.
Dividends
QMAR vs. MGC - Dividend Comparison
QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MGC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MGC Vanguard Mega Cap ETF | 0.87% | 0.93% | 1.15% | 1.35% | 1.65% | 1.17% | 1.45% | 1.81% | 2.10% | 1.83% | 2.14% | 2.11% |
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% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
QMAR and MGC have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MGC has higher volatility (3.04%) compared to QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QMAR dropped -19.83% vs MGC's -51.93%.
On 5-year performance, MGC leads with 14.70% vs 12.13% for QMAR. On fees, MGC is cheaper at 0.05% 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.
Over the 5-year period, MGC has performed better with a 14.70% return vs 12.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
MGC is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.
MGC has the higher dividend yield at 0.87%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.
QMAR is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while MGC is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QMAR and 0.05% for MGC.
QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 2.42), 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.
Find the right allocation for QMAR and MGC
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer