RFFC vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RFFC (ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - RFFC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by SS&C, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, RFFC returned 12.38%/yr vs 12.13%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RFFC charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

RFFC vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) 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, RFFC achieves a 10.59% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

RFFC

• 1D: -0.47%
• 1M: 3.42%
• YTD: 10.59%
• 6M: 10.88%
• 1Y: 28.37%
• 3Y*: 21.20%
• 5Y*: 12.38%
• 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)

RFFC vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF	10.59%	16.83%	23.51%	19.50%	-14.58%	17.60%
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 RFFC and QMAR is 0.80, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.80
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2021	0.84

The correlation between RFFC and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

RFFC vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RFFC	QMAR
Technology	29.8%	54.2%
Industrials	13.2%	2.8%
Healthcare	11.8%	4.2%
Financial Services	11.5%	0.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	12.2%
Communication Services	9.2%	15.5%
Energy	4.4%	0.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	7.6%
Utilities	2.6%	1.4%
Basic Materials	2.3%	1.2%
Real Estate	2.2%	0.1%

Return for Risk

RFFC vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFFC

RFFC Risk / Return Rank: 71
RFFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
RFFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
RFFC Omega Ratio Rank: 71
RFFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
RFFC Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

RFFC vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) 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.

	RFFC	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.38	3.86	-1.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.36	6.05	-2.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.93	-0.51
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.08	7.31	-4.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.17	52.66	-38.49
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RFFC vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFFC Sharpe Ratio is 2.38, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFFC 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

	RFFC	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.38	3.86	-1.49
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.77	0.87	-0.11
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.71	0.91	-0.20

Drawdowns

RFFC vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFFC drawdown since its inception was -36.26%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFFC and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFFC	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.26%	-19.83%	-16.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.25%	-3.21%	-6.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.45%	-15.91%	-2.54%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.29%	-19.83%	-2.46%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.54%	-0.19%	-0.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.02%	-3.28%	-1.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.01%	0.45%	+1.56%

Volatility

RFFC vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) has a higher volatility of 3.00% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 1.27%. This indicates that RFFC'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

	RFFC	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.00%	1.27%	+1.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.32%	4.85%	+4.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.00%	6.09%	+5.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.27%	13.97%	+2.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.97%	13.85%	+4.12%

RFFC vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFFC has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFFC vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

RFFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.72%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
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%
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF	0.72%	0.78%	1.05%	1.35%	1.41%	0.71%	1.79%	1.34%	1.36%	0.93%	0.66%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RFFC and QMAR in my portfolio?

RFFC and QMAR have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RFFC or QMAR?

RFFC has higher volatility (3.00%) compared to QMAR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFFC dropped -36.26% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, RFFC or QMAR?

On 5-year performance, RFFC leads with 12.38% vs 12.13% for QMAR. On fees, RFFC is cheaper at 0.48% 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, RFFC or QMAR?

Over the 5-year period, RFFC has performed better with a 12.38% return vs 12.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RFFC or QMAR?

RFFC is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

RFFC has the higher dividend yield at 0.72%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between RFFC and QMAR?

RFFC is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: SS&C and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for RFFC and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 2.38), 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.