TDEC vs. QMAR

Last updated Apr 18, 2026

TDEC (FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - December) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds — TDEC is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. TDEC is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past year, TDEC returned 29.79% vs 31.30% for QMAR. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TDEC charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

TDEC vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - December (TDEC) 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, TDEC achieves a 7.08% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 8.30% return.

TDEC

• 1D: 0.81%
• 1M: 5.43%
• YTD: 7.08%
• 6M: 10.69%
• 1Y: 29.79%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: 6.27%
• YTD: 8.30%
• 6M: 11.06%
• 1Y: 31.30%
• 3Y*: 17.25%
• 5Y*: 11.23%
• 10Y*: —

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

TDEC vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TDEC FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - December	7.08%	21.39%	-0.70%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	8.30%	10.89%	-0.73%

Correlation

The correlation between TDEC and QMAR is 0.59, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 24, 2024	0.63

The correlation between TDEC and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.63 — a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

TDEC vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

TDEC

TDEC Risk / Return Rank: 80
TDEC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
TDEC Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
TDEC Omega Ratio Rank: 93
TDEC Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
TDEC Martin Ratio Rank: 76

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 97
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 98
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
QMAR 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.

TDEC vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - December (TDEC) 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.

	TDEC	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.00	4.30	-1.30
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.18	7.23	-3.05
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.70	2.14	-0.44
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.60	8.92	-5.31
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	16.04	61.45	-45.42
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TDEC vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TDEC Sharpe Ratio is 3.00, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 4.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TDEC 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

	TDEC	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.00	4.30	-1.30
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.80	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.82	0.85	+0.96

Drawdowns

TDEC vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TDEC drawdown since its inception was -10.30%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TDEC and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	TDEC	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.30%	-19.83%	+9.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.16%	-3.21%	-4.95%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.08%	-3.36%	+2.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.83%	0.47%	+1.36%

Volatility

TDEC vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - December (TDEC) has a higher volatility of 5.92% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 3.97%. This indicates that TDEC'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

	TDEC	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.92%	3.97%	+1.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.43%	4.93%	+3.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.04%	7.35%	+2.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.95%	14.05%	-2.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.95%	14.00%	-2.05%

TDEC vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

TDEC has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

TDEC vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither TDEC nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments