TBJL vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

TBJL (Innovator 20+ Year Treasury Bond Buffer ETF – July) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - TBJL is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. TBJL is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, TBJL returned -3.21%/yr vs 11.78%/yr for QMAR. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TBJL charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

TBJL vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator 20+ Year Treasury Bond Buffer ETF – July (TBJL) 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, TBJL achieves a -0.55% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.34% return.

TBJL

• 1D: -0.08%
• 1M: -0.13%
• YTD: -0.55%
• 6M: -1.07%
• 1Y: -0.32%
• 3Y*: -1.18%
• 5Y*: -3.21%
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -1.50%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 11.34%
• 6M: 12.13%
• 1Y: 21.87%
• 3Y*: 16.08%
• 5Y*: 11.78%
• 10Y*: —

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

TBJL vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
TBJL Innovator 20+ Year Treasury Bond Buffer ETF – July	-0.55%	1.74%	-3.16%	4.12%	-20.82%	8.24%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.34%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-16.56%	12.31%

Correlation

The correlation between TBJL and QMAR is 0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.03
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.09
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2021	0.07

Return for Risk

TBJL vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

TBJL

TBJL Risk / Return Rank: 8
TBJL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
TBJL Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
TBJL Omega Ratio Rank: 8
TBJL Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
TBJL Martin Ratio Rank: 9

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 96
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
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.

TBJL vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator 20+ Year Treasury Bond Buffer ETF – July (TBJL) 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.

	TBJL	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.06	3.51	-3.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.04	5.28	-5.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.00	1.84	-0.85
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.07	6.84	-6.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.13	47.96	-48.09
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TBJL vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TBJL Sharpe Ratio is -0.06, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TBJL 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

	TBJL	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.06	3.51	-3.56
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.30	0.85	-1.14
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.38	0.88	-1.26

Drawdowns

TBJL vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBJL drawdown since its inception was -29.36%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TBJL and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBJL	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.36%	-19.83%	-9.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.46%	-3.21%	-1.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.01%	-15.91%	+0.90%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.57%	-19.83%	-8.74%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-21.02%	-1.70%	-19.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.63%	-3.28%	-12.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.51%	0.46%	+2.05%

Volatility

TBJL vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator 20+ Year Treasury Bond Buffer ETF – July (TBJL) is 0.67%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 1.95%. This indicates that TBJL 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

	TBJL	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.67%	1.95%	-1.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.18%	5.11%	-1.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.93%	6.28%	-0.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.89%	13.98%	-3.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.66%	13.86%	-3.20%

TBJL vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

TBJL has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

TBJL vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither TBJL nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBJL and QMAR in my portfolio?

TBJL and QMAR have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TBJL or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (1.95%) compared to TBJL (0.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TBJL dropped -29.36% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, TBJL or QMAR?

On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 11.78% vs -3.21% for TBJL. On fees, TBJL is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, TBJL has been the lower-risk option at 0.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TBJL or QMAR?

Over the 5-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 11.78% return vs -3.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBJL or QMAR?

TBJL is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between TBJL and QMAR?

TBJL is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for TBJL and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.51 vs -0.06), 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.