QYLD vs. QMAR

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

QYLD (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. QYLD is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, QYLD returned 7.94%/yr vs 11.18%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.86 means they have usually moved in the same direction. QYLD charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

QYLD vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) 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, QYLD achieves a 8.73% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 12.60% return.

QYLD

• 1D: 0.99%
• 1M: 0.00%
• 6M: 6.38%
• YTD: 8.73%
• 1Y: 21.85%
• 3Y*: 13.13%
• 5Y*: 7.94%
• 10Y*: 9.65%
• ALL TIME*: 8.64%

QMAR

• 1D: 0.62%
• 1M: 0.65%
• 6M: 11.79%
• YTD: 12.60%
• 1Y: 19.26%
• 3Y*: 15.58%
• 5Y*: 11.18%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.14%

*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	$331.81K	$318.22K	$438.70K
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	$81.92M	$78.72M	$98.91M

QYLD vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	8.73%	9.28%	19.35%	22.77%	-19.08%	9.91%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	12.60%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-16.56%	12.87%

Correlation

The correlation between QYLD and QMAR is 0.86, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.84
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2021	0.86

The correlation between QYLD and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

QYLD vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QYLD	QMAR
Technology	61.4%	60.2%
Communication Services	12.5%	13.3%
Consumer Cyclical	10.2%	10.9%
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	6.5%
Industrials	4.4%	2.7%
Healthcare	3.8%	3.6%
Utilities	1.3%	1.2%
Basic Materials	1.1%	1.0%
Energy	0.5%	0.5%
Financial Services	0.2%	0.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.1%

Return for Risk

QYLD vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QYLD

QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 87
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 88
QYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
QYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 93

QMAR

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

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.

QYLD vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) 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.

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.

	QYLD	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.95	2.78	-0.82
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.78	4.18	-1.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.60	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.80	6.02	-2.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.57	28.19	-10.62

QYLD vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QYLD Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is comparable to the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QYLD 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.

Drawdowns

QYLD vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QYLD drawdown since its inception was -24.75%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QYLD and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QYLD	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.75%	-19.83%	-4.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.78%	-3.21%	-2.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.06%	-15.91%	-3.15%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.61%	-19.83%	-4.78%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.75%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.00%	-0.59%	-1.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.81%	-3.22%	-0.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.25%	0.68%	+0.57%

Volatility

QYLD vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) has a higher volatility of 5.17% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 2.62%. This indicates that QYLD'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

	QYLD	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.17%	2.62%	+2.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.07%	6.18%	+3.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.26%	6.98%	+4.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.05%	14.05%	+1.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.64%	13.74%	+1.90%

QYLD vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

QYLD has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

QYLD vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

QYLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.78%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	11.78%	11.55%	12.50%	11.78%	13.75%	12.85%	11.16%	9.84%	12.44%	7.69%	9.15%	9.42%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QYLD and QMAR in my portfolio?

QYLD and QMAR have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QYLD or QMAR?

QYLD has higher volatility (5.17%) compared to QMAR (2.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QYLD dropped -24.75% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, QYLD or QMAR?

On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 11.18% vs 7.94% for QYLD. On fees, QYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QYLD or QMAR?

Over the 5-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 11.18% return vs 7.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QYLD or QMAR?

QYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

QYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.78%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between QYLD and QMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QYLD and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.78 vs 1.95), 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.