PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QMMY vs. GSG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QMMY vs. GSG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - May (QMMY) and iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (GSG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QMMY achieves a 6.16% return, which is significantly lower than GSG's 42.58% return.


QMMY

1D
-0.04%
1M
2.21%
YTD
6.16%
6M
6.79%
1Y
15.83%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

GSG

1D
0.77%
1M
-4.83%
YTD
42.58%
6M
41.06%
1Y
51.52%
3Y*
19.31%
5Y*
15.74%
10Y*
7.69%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QMMY vs. GSG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024
QMMY
FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - May
6.16%15.80%8.26%
GSG
iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust
42.58%5.93%-3.33%

Correlation

The correlation between QMMY and GSG is -0.18, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.18

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 21, 2024

0.00

The correlation between QMMY and GSG shifts across timeframes, from -0.18 (1 year) to 0.00 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

QMMY vs. GSG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QMMY
QMMY Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
QMMY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8080
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QMMY Sortino Ratio Rank: 8686
Sortino Ratio Rank
QMMY Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
QMMY Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
QMMY Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank

GSG
GSG Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
GSG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GSG Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
GSG Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
GSG Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
GSG Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

QMMY vs. GSG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - May (QMMY) and iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (GSG). 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.


QMMYGSGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.29

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.95

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.53

1.40

+0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.17

5.47

-1.31

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

24.34

14.39

+9.94

QMMY vs. GSG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QMMY Sharpe Ratio is 2.55, which is comparable to the GSG Sharpe Ratio of 2.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QMMY and GSG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


QMMYGSGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.55

2.26

+0.29

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.70

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.35

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.40

-0.09

+1.48

Drawdowns

QMMY vs. GSG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QMMY drawdown since its inception was -12.82%, smaller than the maximum GSG drawdown of -89.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMMY and GSG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QMMYGSGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-12.82%

-89.62%

+76.80%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.82%

-9.46%

+5.64%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.94%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.12%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-57.64%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.04%

-56.95%

+56.91%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.13%

-63.71%

+62.58%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.65%

3.59%

-2.94%

Volatility

QMMY vs. GSG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - May (QMMY) is 1.14%, while iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (GSG) has a volatility of 7.65%. This indicates that QMMY experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GSG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QMMYGSGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.14%

7.65%

-6.51%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.71%

20.42%

-15.71%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

6.25%

22.95%

-16.70%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

10.87%

22.61%

-11.74%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.87%

22.03%

-11.16%

QMMY vs. GSG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QMMY has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than GSG's 0.75% expense ratio.


Dividends

QMMY vs. GSG - Dividend Comparison

Neither QMMY nor GSG has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


QMMY and GSG have a correlation of -0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GSG has higher volatility (7.65%) compared to QMMY (1.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QMMY dropped -12.82% vs GSG's -89.62%.

On 1-year performance, GSG leads with 51.52% vs 15.83% for QMMY. On fees, GSG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, QMMY has been the lower-risk option at 1.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, GSG has performed better with a 51.52% return vs 15.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GSG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMMY.

QMMY and GSG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

QMMY is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while GSG is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QMMY and 0.75% for GSG.

QMMY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 2.26), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QMMY and GSG

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