QQQH vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QQQH (NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. Over the past 5 years, QQQH returned 9.42%/yr vs 12.13%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QQQH charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

QQQH vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF (QQQH) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQQH achieves a 7.91% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

QQQH

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 4.93%
• YTD: 7.91%
• 6M: 7.82%
• 1Y: 20.09%
• 3Y*: 20.71%
• 5Y*: 9.42%
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 2.81%
• YTD: 13.06%
• 6M: 14.01%
• 1Y: 23.38%
• 3Y*: 16.73%
• 5Y*: 12.13%
• 10Y*: —

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

QQQH vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QQQH NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF	7.91%	14.17%	25.98%	30.96%	-28.35%	10.72%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-16.56%	12.31%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQH and QMAR is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2021	0.86

The correlation between QQQH and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

QQQH vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQQH	QMAR
Technology	53.5%	54.2%
Communication Services	16.1%	15.5%
Consumer Cyclical	12.1%	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	7.6%
Healthcare	4.1%	4.2%
Industrials	3.1%	2.8%
Utilities	1.3%	1.4%
Basic Materials	1.2%	1.2%
Energy	0.6%	0.6%
Financial Services	0.2%	0.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.1%

Return for Risk

QQQH vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQQH

QQQH Risk / Return Rank: 62
QQQH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
QQQH Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
QQQH Omega Ratio Rank: 63
QQQH Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
QQQH Martin Ratio Rank: 67

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 96
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

QQQH vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF (QQQH) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). 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.

	QQQH	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	3.86	-1.77
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.85	6.05	-3.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.93	-0.54
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.90	7.31	-4.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.60	52.66	-40.05
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QQQH vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQH Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQH and QMAR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QQQH	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.09	3.86	-1.77
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72	0.87	-0.15
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.79	0.91	-0.12

Drawdowns

QQQH vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQH drawdown since its inception was -31.24%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQH and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQH	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.24%	-19.83%	-11.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.96%	-3.21%	-3.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.18%	-15.91%	+0.73%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.24%	-19.83%	-11.41%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.02%	-0.19%	+0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.27%	-3.28%	-4.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.60%	0.45%	+1.15%

Volatility

QQQH vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF (QQQH) has a higher volatility of 1.73% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 1.27%. This indicates that QQQH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQQH	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.73%	1.27%	+0.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.34%	4.85%	+2.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.67%	6.09%	+3.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.20%	13.97%	-0.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.37%	13.85%	-0.48%

QQQH vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQQH has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQQH vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

QQQH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.74%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
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%
QQQH NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF	8.74%	8.86%	7.53%	7.18%	9.05%	7.77%	7.48%	0.65%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQQH and QMAR in my portfolio?

QQQH and QMAR have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QQQH or QMAR?

QQQH has higher volatility (1.73%) compared to QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQQH dropped -31.24% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, QQQH or QMAR?

On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 12.13% vs 9.42% for QQQH. On fees, QQQH is cheaper at 0.68% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, QQQH or QMAR?

Over the 5-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 12.13% return vs 9.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQQH or QMAR?

QQQH is cheaper with a 0.68% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

QQQH has the higher dividend yield at 8.74%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between QQQH and QMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Neos and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for QQQH and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 2.09), 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.