STEN vs. QMAR

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

STEN (iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Sep ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - STEN is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by BlackRock, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Their correlation of 0.89 means they have usually moved in the same direction. STEN charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

STEN vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Sep ETF (STEN) 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, STEN achieves a 8.49% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.91% return.

STEN

• 1D: 0.73%
• 1M: 0.75%
• 6M: 7.36%
• YTD: 8.49%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

QMAR

• 1D: 0.47%
• 1M: 0.04%
• 6M: 11.24%
• YTD: 11.91%
• 1Y: 18.52%
• 3Y*: 14.85%
• 5Y*: 11.10%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.03%

*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	$319.00K	$316.44K	$452.98K
STEN iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Sep ETF	$12.61K	$40.38K	$88.23K

STEN vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
STEN iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Sep ETF	8.49%	2.36%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.91%	2.55%

Correlation

The correlation between STEN and QMAR is 0.89, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2025	0.89

Return for Risk

STEN vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

STEN

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

STEN vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Sep ETF (STEN) 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.

	STEN	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.55	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.83	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.55	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	5.54	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	26.00	—

Drawdowns

STEN vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum STEN drawdown since its inception was -6.21%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for STEN and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	STEN	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-6.21%	-19.83%	+13.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-3.21%	—
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	-0.25%	-1.20%	+0.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.91%	-3.22%	+2.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.68%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	STEN	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	2.60%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	6.16%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.35%	6.99%	+2.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.35%	14.04%	-4.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.35%	13.75%	-4.40%

STEN vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

STEN has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

STEN vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

STEN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.29%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%
STEN iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Sep ETF	0.29%	0.31%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both STEN and QMAR in my portfolio?

STEN and QMAR have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, STEN or QMAR?

On fees, STEN is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, STEN or QMAR?

STEN is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

STEN has the higher dividend yield at 0.29%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between STEN and QMAR?

STEN is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: BlackRock and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for STEN and 0.90% for QMAR.