TMAR vs. PBQQ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

TMAR (FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March) and PBQQ (PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. TMAR is passively managed, while PBQQ is actively managed. Over the past year, TMAR returned 28.83% vs 20.98% for PBQQ. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TMAR charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PBQQ.

Performance

TMAR vs. PBQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR) and PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF (PBQQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TMAR achieves a 14.45% return, which is significantly higher than PBQQ's 9.10% return.

TMAR

• 1D: -0.72%
• 1M: 2.73%
• YTD: 14.45%
• 6M: 15.92%
• 1Y: 28.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PBQQ

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 2.58%
• YTD: 9.10%
• 6M: 9.79%
• 1Y: 20.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TMAR vs. PBQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
TMAR FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March	14.45%	14.71%
PBQQ PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF	9.10%	16.14%

Correlation

The correlation between TMAR and PBQQ is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 25, 2025	0.61

The correlation between TMAR and PBQQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

TMAR vs. PBQQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMAR

TMAR Risk / Return Rank: 94
TMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
TMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
TMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
TMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
TMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 96

PBQQ

PBQQ Risk / Return Rank: 89
PBQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
PBQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
PBQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 91
PBQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
PBQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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. PBQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR) and PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF (PBQQ). 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.

	TMAR	PBQQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.06	2.94	+0.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.63	4.33	+0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.77	1.59	+0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.95	4.47	+3.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	38.42	21.36	+17.06
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TMAR vs. PBQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.06, which is comparable to the PBQQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMAR and PBQQ, 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

	TMAR	PBQQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.06	2.94	+0.12
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.25	1.50	+0.75

Drawdowns

TMAR vs. PBQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.93%, smaller than the maximum PBQQ drawdown of -12.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMAR and PBQQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMAR	PBQQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.93%	-12.92%	+2.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.64%	-4.71%	+1.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.72%	-0.21%	-0.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.66%	-1.26%	+0.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.75%	0.98%	-0.23%

Volatility

TMAR vs. PBQQ - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR) has a higher volatility of 4.53% compared to PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF (PBQQ) at 1.07%. This indicates that TMAR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PBQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TMAR	PBQQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.53%	1.07%	+3.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.17%	5.51%	+2.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.47%	7.18%	+2.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.42%	11.88%	-0.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.42%	11.88%	-0.46%

TMAR vs. PBQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMAR has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than PBQQ's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMAR vs. PBQQ - Dividend Comparison

TMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PBQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%.

Position	TTM	2025
PBQQ PGIM Laddered Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF	0.01%	0.01%
TMAR FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMAR and PBQQ in my portfolio?

TMAR and PBQQ have a correlation of 0.65, 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 PBQQ?

TMAR has higher volatility (4.53%) compared to PBQQ (1.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMAR dropped -9.93% vs PBQQ's -12.92%.

Which ETF is better, TMAR or PBQQ?

On 1-year performance, TMAR leads with 28.83% vs 20.98% for PBQQ. On fees, PBQQ is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PBQQ has been the lower-risk option at 1.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TMAR or PBQQ?

Over the 1-year period, TMAR has performed better with a 28.83% return vs 20.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMAR or PBQQ?

PBQQ is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for TMAR.

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

PBQQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.01%, compared with 0.00% for TMAR.

What is the main difference between TMAR and PBQQ?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for TMAR and 0.50% for PBQQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.06 vs 2.94), 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.