SNAV vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

SNAV (Mohr Sector Nav ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - SNAV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Mohr Funds, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, SNAV returned 14.33%/yr vs 15.65%/yr for QMAR. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SNAV charges 1.30%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

SNAV vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Mohr Sector Nav ETF (SNAV) 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, SNAV achieves a 8.64% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.40% return.

SNAV

• 1D: -0.81%
• 1M: -0.19%
• YTD: 8.64%
• 6M: 7.86%
• 1Y: 20.56%
• 3Y*: 14.33%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -1.06%
• 1M: -0.77%
• YTD: 11.40%
• 6M: 11.38%
• 1Y: 20.76%
• 3Y*: 15.65%
• 5Y*: 11.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

SNAV vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
SNAV Mohr Sector Nav ETF	8.64%	15.54%	11.11%	12.29%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.40%	10.89%	16.11%	32.32%

Correlation

The correlation between SNAV and QMAR is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2023	0.76

The correlation between SNAV and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

SNAV vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SNAV	QMAR
Technology	46.0%	58.7%
Financial Services	9.6%	0.2%
Industrials	8.0%	2.6%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	11.4%
Healthcare	7.9%	3.7%
Communication Services	6.9%	14.3%
Consumer Defensive	4.1%	6.4%
Energy	2.7%	0.5%
Utilities	2.6%	1.2%
Real Estate	2.6%	0.1%
Basic Materials	1.9%	1.0%

Return for Risk

SNAV vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

SNAV

SNAV Risk / Return Rank: 62
SNAV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
SNAV Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
SNAV Omega Ratio Rank: 58
SNAV Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
SNAV Martin Ratio Rank: 66

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
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.

SNAV vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mohr Sector Nav ETF (SNAV) 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.

	SNAV	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.82	3.19	-1.37
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.45	4.77	-2.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.74	-0.41
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.20	6.49	-3.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.85	39.78	-28.93

SNAV vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SNAV Sharpe Ratio is 1.82, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SNAV 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

SNAV vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SNAV drawdown since its inception was -16.61%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SNAV and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	SNAV	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.61%	-19.83%	+3.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.45%	-3.21%	-3.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.61%	-15.91%	-0.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.28%	-1.65%	-1.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.51%	-3.26%	+0.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.90%	0.52%	+1.38%

Volatility

SNAV vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

Mohr Sector Nav ETF (SNAV) has a higher volatility of 4.80% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 2.92%. This indicates that SNAV'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

	SNAV	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.80%	2.92%	+1.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.32%	5.59%	+2.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.35%	6.55%	+4.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.73%	14.01%	-0.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.73%	13.83%	-0.10%

SNAV vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

SNAV has a 1.30% expense ratio, which is higher than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

SNAV vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither SNAV nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SNAV Mohr Sector Nav ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.94%	3.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SNAV and QMAR in my portfolio?

SNAV 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, SNAV or QMAR?

SNAV has higher volatility (4.80%) compared to QMAR (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SNAV dropped -16.61% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, SNAV or QMAR?

On 3-year performance, QMAR leads with 15.65% vs 14.33% for SNAV. On fees, QMAR is cheaper at 0.90% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SNAV or QMAR?

Over the 3-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 15.65% return vs 14.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SNAV or QMAR?

QMAR is cheaper with a 0.90% expense ratio, compared with 1.30% for SNAV.

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

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

What is the main difference between SNAV and QMAR?

SNAV is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Mohr Funds and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 1.30% for SNAV and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs 1.82), 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.