QTR vs. QMAR
QTR (Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. QTR is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, QTR returned 22.93%/yr vs 16.73%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QTR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.
Performance
QTR vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QTR achieves a 17.64% return, which is significantly higher than QMAR's 13.06% return.
QTR
- 1D
- -0.24%
- 1M
- 10.52%
- YTD
- 17.64%
- 6M
- 15.72%
- 1Y
- 33.76%
- 3Y*
- 22.93%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
QMAR
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- 2.81%
- YTD
- 13.06%
- 6M
- 14.01%
- 1Y
- 23.38%
- 3Y*
- 16.73%
- 5Y*
- 12.13%
- 10Y*
- —
QTR vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QTR Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF | 17.64% | 14.52% | 21.46% | 45.53% | -29.94% | 4.16% |
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 13.06% | 10.89% | 16.11% | 35.47% | -16.56% | 2.76% |
Correlation
The correlation between QTR and QMAR 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 | 0.87 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 27, 2021 | 0.85 |
The correlation between QTR and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.
QTR vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
QTR
QMAR
Technology
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Consumer Defensive
Healthcare
Industrials
Utilities
Basic Materials
Energy
Financial Services
Real Estate
Technology
QTR
QMAR
Communication Services
QTR
QMAR
Consumer Cyclical
QTR
QMAR
Consumer Defensive
QTR
QMAR
Healthcare
QTR
QMAR
Industrials
QTR
QMAR
Utilities
QTR
QMAR
Basic Materials
QTR
QMAR
Energy
QTR
QMAR
Financial Services
QTR
QMAR
Real Estate
QTR
QMAR
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
QTR vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank
QTR
QMAR
QTR vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF (QTR) 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.
| QTR | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.40 | 3.86 | -1.46 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.22 | 6.05 | -2.83 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.41 | 1.93 | -0.52 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.76 | 7.31 | -4.55 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.47 | 52.66 | -43.18 |
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
| QTR | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.40 | 3.86 | -1.46 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.87 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.68 | 0.91 | -0.23 |
Drawdowns
QTR vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QTR drawdown since its inception was -31.72%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QTR and QMAR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QTR | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.72% | -19.83% | -11.89% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.29% | -3.21% | -9.08% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.99% | -15.91% | -3.08% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -19.83% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.24% | -0.19% | -0.05% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.84% | -3.28% | -5.56% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.57% | 0.45% | +3.12% |
Volatility
QTR vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison
Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF (QTR) has a higher volatility of 4.52% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 1.27%. This indicates that QTR'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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QTR | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.52% | 1.27% | +3.25% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.68% | 4.85% | +5.83% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.14% | 6.09% | +8.05% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.10% | 13.97% | +4.13% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.10% | 13.85% | +4.25% |
QTR vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison
QTR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.
Dividends
QTR vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison
QTR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 15.96%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
QTR Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF | 15.96% | 18.77% | 0.50% | 0.53% | 0.36% | 1.90% |
Frequently Asked Questions
QTR and QMAR 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.
QTR has higher volatility (4.52%) compared to QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QTR dropped -31.72% vs QMAR's -19.83%.
On 3-year performance, QTR leads with 22.93% vs 16.73% for QMAR. On fees, QTR is cheaper at 0.60% 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 3-year period, QTR has performed better with a 22.93% return vs 16.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
QTR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.
QTR has the higher dividend yield at 15.96%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.
They also come from different issuers: Global X and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QTR and 0.90% for QMAR.
QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 2.40), 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 QTR and QMAR
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