QMAR vs. QB
QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) and QB (ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust, while QB is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the Nasdaq-100. QMAR is actively managed, while QB is passively managed. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QMAR charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for QB.
Performance
QMAR vs. QB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QMAR achieves a 13.06% return, which is significantly higher than QB's 10.47% return.
QMAR
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- 2.81%
- YTD
- 13.06%
- 6M
- 14.01%
- 1Y
- 23.38%
- 3Y*
- 16.73%
- 5Y*
- 12.13%
- 10Y*
- —
QB
- 1D
- -0.19%
- 1M
- 2.95%
- YTD
- 10.47%
- 6M
- 9.91%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
QMAR vs. QB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 13.06% | 7.07% |
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF | 10.47% | 5.77% |
Correlation
The correlation between QMAR and QB is 0.74, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2025 | 0.74 |
QMAR vs. QB - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
QMAR
QB
Technology
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Consumer Defensive
Healthcare
Industrials
Utilities
Basic Materials
Energy
Financial Services
Real Estate
Technology
QMAR
QB
Communication Services
QMAR
QB
Consumer Cyclical
QMAR
QB
Consumer Defensive
QMAR
QB
Healthcare
QMAR
QB
Industrials
QMAR
QB
Utilities
QMAR
QB
Basic Materials
QMAR
QB
Energy
QMAR
QB
Financial Services
QMAR
QB
Real Estate
QMAR
QB
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. QB — Risk / Return Rank
QMAR
QB
QMAR vs. QB - 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 ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB). 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 | QB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 3.86 | — | — |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 6.05 | — | — |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.93 | — | — |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 7.31 | — | — |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 52.66 | — | — |
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 | QB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.86 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.87 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.91 | 3.17 | -2.26 |
Drawdowns
QMAR vs. QB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QMAR drawdown since its inception was -19.83%, which is greater than QB's maximum drawdown of -1.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMAR and QB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QMAR | QB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.83% | -1.83% | -18.00% |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.19% | -0.30% | +0.11% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.28% | -0.34% | -2.94% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.45% | — | — |
Volatility
QMAR vs. QB - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QMAR | QB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.27% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.85% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.09% | 5.75% | +0.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.97% | 5.75% | +8.22% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.85% | 5.75% | +8.10% |
QMAR vs. QB - Expense Ratio Comparison
QMAR has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than QB's 0.58% expense ratio.
Dividends
QMAR vs. QB - Dividend Comparison
QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.62%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF | 0.62% | 0.48% |
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
QMAR and QB have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, QB is cheaper at 0.58% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
QB is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.
QB has the higher dividend yield at 0.62%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.
QMAR is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while QB is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QMAR and 0.58% for QB.
Find the right allocation for QMAR and QB
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