QMAR vs. QNDX

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) and QNDX (SPDR Portfolio Nasdaq 100 ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. QMAR is actively managed, while QNDX is passively managed. Their 0.98 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. QMAR charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for QNDX.

Performance

QMAR vs. QNDX - 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 SPDR Portfolio Nasdaq 100 ETF (QNDX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

QMAR

• 1D: 0.78%
• 1M: 1.44%
• 6M: 12.77%
• YTD: 13.48%
• 1Y: 19.34%
• 3Y*: 15.88%
• 5Y*: 11.25%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.30%

QNDX

• 1D: 3.37%
• 1M: 1.53%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	$351.92K	$318.87K	$437.43K
QNDX SPDR Portfolio Nasdaq 100 ETF	$13.52M	$14.31M	$12.57M

QMAR vs. QNDX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	1.86%
QNDX SPDR Portfolio Nasdaq 100 ETF	1.28%

Correlation

The correlation between QMAR and QNDX is 0.98 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 24, 2026	0.98

Return for Risk

QMAR vs. QNDX — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

QNDX

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

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QMAR vs. QNDX - 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 SPDR Portfolio Nasdaq 100 ETF (QNDX). 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	QNDX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.79	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.19	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.61	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.05	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	28.32	—	—

Drawdowns

QMAR vs. QNDX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QMAR drawdown since its inception was -19.83%, which is greater than QNDX's maximum drawdown of -10.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMAR and QNDX.

Drawdown Indicators

	QMAR	QNDX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.83%	-10.10%	-9.73%
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	0.00%	-1.72%	+1.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.21%	-3.75%	+0.54%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.68%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	QMAR	QNDX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.66%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.22%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.00%	25.28%	-18.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.05%	25.28%	-11.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.74%	25.28%	-11.54%

QMAR vs. QNDX - Expense Ratio Comparison

QMAR has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than QNDX's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

QMAR vs. QNDX - Dividend Comparison

Neither QMAR nor QNDX has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QMAR and QNDX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, QMAR and QNDX 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 QNDX?

On fees, QNDX is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, QMAR or QNDX?

QNDX is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between QMAR and QNDX?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QMAR and 0.10% for QNDX.