SIXZ vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SIXZ (AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 May/Nov ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - SIXZ is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Allianz, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, SIXZ returned 12.65% vs 23.38% for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SIXZ charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

SIXZ vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 May/Nov ETF (SIXZ) 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, SIXZ achieves a 6.18% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

SIXZ

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: 2.31%
• YTD: 6.18%
• 6M: 6.65%
• 1Y: 12.65%
• 3Y*: —
• 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*: —

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

SIXZ vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
SIXZ AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 May/Nov ETF	6.18%	7.24%	10.54%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	10.89%	15.71%

Correlation

The correlation between SIXZ and QMAR 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2024	0.83

The correlation between SIXZ and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

SIXZ vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SIXZ	QMAR
Technology	36.2%	54.2%
Financial Services	11.9%	0.2%
Communication Services	10.9%	15.5%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	12.2%
Healthcare	8.4%	4.2%
Industrials	8.1%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	7.6%
Energy	3.5%	0.6%
Utilities	2.3%	1.4%
Real Estate	1.9%	0.1%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.2%

Return for Risk

SIXZ vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

SIXZ

SIXZ Risk / Return Rank: 67
SIXZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
SIXZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
SIXZ Omega Ratio Rank: 74
SIXZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
SIXZ Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

SIXZ vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 May/Nov ETF (SIXZ) 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.

	SIXZ	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.10	3.86	-1.76
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.06	6.05	-2.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.93	-0.50
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.85	7.31	-4.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.82	52.66	-39.84
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SIXZ vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SIXZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.10, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SIXZ 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

	SIXZ	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.10	3.86	-1.76
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.51	0.91	+0.60

Drawdowns

SIXZ vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SIXZ drawdown since its inception was -10.27%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SIXZ and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	SIXZ	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.27%	-19.83%	+9.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.45%	-3.21%	-1.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.91%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.33%	-0.19%	-0.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.92%	-3.28%	+2.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.99%	0.45%	+0.54%

Volatility

SIXZ vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Buffer10 May/Nov ETF (SIXZ) is 1.15%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 1.27%. This indicates that SIXZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SIXZ	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.15%	1.27%	-0.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.13%	4.85%	+0.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.04%	6.09%	-0.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.79%	13.97%	-6.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.79%	13.85%	-6.06%

SIXZ vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

SIXZ has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

SIXZ vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither SIXZ nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SIXZ and QMAR in my portfolio?

SIXZ and QMAR 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, SIXZ or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to SIXZ (1.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SIXZ dropped -10.27% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, SIXZ or QMAR?

On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 23.38% vs 12.65% for SIXZ. On fees, SIXZ is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, SIXZ has been the lower-risk option at 1.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SIXZ or QMAR?

Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 23.38% return vs 12.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SIXZ or QMAR?

SIXZ is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

SIXZ and QMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between SIXZ and QMAR?

SIXZ is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Allianz and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for SIXZ and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 2.10), 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.