TMAR vs. ISCMF

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

TMAR (FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March) and ISCMF (iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TMAR is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) Price Return, while ISCMF is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, TMAR returned 22.71% vs 31.30% for ISCMF. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. TMAR charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for ISCMF.

Performance

TMAR vs. ISCMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR) and iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TMAR achieves a 12.21% return, which is significantly lower than ISCMF's 22.87% return.

TMAR

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: -0.17%
• YTD: 12.21%
• 6M: 12.43%
• 1Y: 22.71%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ISCMF

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -4.99%
• YTD: 22.87%
• 6M: 22.87%
• 1Y: 31.30%
• 3Y*: 16.78%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TMAR vs. ISCMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
TMAR FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March	12.21%	15.97%
ISCMF iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF	22.87%	10.20%

Correlation

The correlation between TMAR and ISCMF is -0.05, 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	-0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 24, 2025	-0.04

Return for Risk

TMAR vs. ISCMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMAR

TMAR Risk / Return Rank: 86
TMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
TMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
TMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 91
TMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
TMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 94

ISCMF

ISCMF Risk / Return Rank: 81
ISCMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
ISCMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
ISCMF Omega Ratio Rank: 98
ISCMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
ISCMF Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

TMAR vs. ISCMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR) and iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF). 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.

	TMAR	ISCMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	1.76	+0.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.99	3.18	-0.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	2.31	-0.79
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.86	5.53	-0.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	23.50	11.76	+11.74

TMAR vs. ISCMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMAR Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is comparable to the ISCMF Sharpe Ratio of 1.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMAR and ISCMF, 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

TMAR vs. ISCMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.93%, smaller than the maximum ISCMF drawdown of -25.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMAR and ISCMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMAR	ISCMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.93%	-25.42%	+15.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.69%	-5.69%	+1.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.62%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.96%	-5.26%	+2.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.73%	-13.34%	+12.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.97%	2.67%	-1.70%

Volatility

TMAR vs. ISCMF - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR) has a higher volatility of 6.23% compared to iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF) at 5.11%. This indicates that TMAR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ISCMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TMAR	ISCMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.23%	5.11%	+1.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.98%	15.45%	-5.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.88%	17.84%	-6.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.31%	14.28%	-1.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.31%	14.28%	-1.97%

TMAR vs. ISCMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMAR has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than ISCMF's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMAR vs. ISCMF - Dividend Comparison

Neither TMAR nor ISCMF has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMAR and ISCMF in my portfolio?

TMAR and ISCMF have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TMAR or ISCMF?

TMAR has higher volatility (6.23%) compared to ISCMF (5.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMAR dropped -9.93% vs ISCMF's -25.42%.

Which ETF is better, TMAR or ISCMF?

On 1-year performance, ISCMF leads with 31.30% vs 22.71% for TMAR. On fees, ISCMF is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, ISCMF has been the lower-risk option at 5.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TMAR or ISCMF?

Over the 1-year period, ISCMF has performed better with a 31.30% return vs 22.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMAR or ISCMF?

ISCMF is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for TMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TMAR or ISCMF?

TMAR and ISCMF have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between TMAR and ISCMF?

TMAR is categorized as Defined Outcome, while ISCMF is Commodities. TMAR tracks iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) Price Return, while ISCMF tracks Bloomberg Commodity Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for TMAR and 0.19% for ISCMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs 1.76), 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.