SIXJ vs. XMAR

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

SIXJ (AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Buffer10 Jan/Jul ETF) and XMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds. SIXJ is passively managed, while XMAR is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, SIXJ returned 13.40%/yr vs 10.68%/yr for XMAR. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SIXJ charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for XMAR.

Performance

SIXJ vs. XMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Buffer10 Jan/Jul ETF (SIXJ) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SIXJ achieves a 6.89% return, which is significantly lower than XMAR's 7.34% return.

SIXJ

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 0.79%
• 6M: 6.27%
• YTD: 6.89%
• 1Y: 13.92%
• 3Y*: 13.40%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XMAR

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 0.42%
• 6M: 7.08%
• YTD: 7.34%
• 1Y: 11.66%
• 3Y*: 10.68%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SIXJ vs. XMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
SIXJ AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Buffer10 Jan/Jul ETF	6.89%	12.81%	14.48%	15.19%
XMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March	7.34%	10.30%	10.10%	10.71%

Correlation

The correlation between SIXJ and XMAR is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 20, 2023	0.76

The correlation between SIXJ and XMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

SIXJ vs. XMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

SIXJ

SIXJ Risk / Return Rank: 88
SIXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
SIXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
SIXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 93
SIXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
SIXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 91

XMAR

XMAR Risk / Return Rank: 98
XMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
XMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
XMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 98
XMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
XMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

SIXJ vs. XMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Buffer10 Jan/Jul ETF (SIXJ) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR). 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.

	SIXJ	XMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.45	3.85	-1.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.56	6.49	-2.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	2.02	-0.51
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.09	7.92	-4.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.74	53.63	-36.89

SIXJ vs. XMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SIXJ Sharpe Ratio is 2.45, which is lower than the XMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SIXJ and XMAR, 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

SIXJ vs. XMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SIXJ drawdown since its inception was -14.07%, which is greater than XMAR's maximum drawdown of -7.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SIXJ and XMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	SIXJ	XMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.07%	-7.29%	-6.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.53%	-1.48%	-3.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.89%	-7.29%	-3.60%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.28%	-0.09%	-0.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.80%	-0.30%	-2.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.83%	0.22%	+0.61%

Volatility

SIXJ vs. XMAR - Volatility Comparison

AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Buffer10 Jan/Jul ETF (SIXJ) has a higher volatility of 1.38% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) at 0.83%. This indicates that SIXJ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SIXJ	XMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.38%	0.83%	+0.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.89%	2.66%	+2.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.71%	3.04%	+2.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.92%	5.49%	+4.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.92%	5.49%	+4.43%

SIXJ vs. XMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

SIXJ has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than XMAR's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

SIXJ vs. XMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither SIXJ nor XMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SIXJ and XMAR in my portfolio?

SIXJ and XMAR have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SIXJ or XMAR?

SIXJ has higher volatility (1.38%) compared to XMAR (0.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SIXJ dropped -14.07% vs XMAR's -7.29%.

Which ETF is better, SIXJ or XMAR?

On 3-year performance, SIXJ leads with 13.40% vs 10.68% for XMAR. On fees, SIXJ is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, XMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SIXJ or XMAR?

Over the 3-year period, SIXJ has performed better with a 13.40% return vs 10.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SIXJ or XMAR?

SIXJ is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for XMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SIXJ or XMAR?

SIXJ and XMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between SIXJ and XMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Allianz and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for SIXJ and 0.85% for XMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.85 vs 2.45), 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.