XBJA vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

XBJA (Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - January) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - XBJA is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Innovator, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, XBJA returned 11.26%/yr vs 15.65%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XBJA charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

XBJA vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - January (XBJA) 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, XBJA achieves a 4.94% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 11.40% return.

XBJA

• 1D: -0.49%
• 1M: 0.03%
• YTD: 4.94%
• 6M: 5.07%
• 1Y: 12.88%
• 3Y*: 11.26%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -1.06%
• 1M: -0.77%
• YTD: 11.40%
• 6M: 11.38%
• 1Y: 20.76%
• 3Y*: 15.65%
• 5Y*: 11.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

XBJA vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
XBJA Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - January	4.94%	11.12%	11.68%	17.62%	-11.58%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.40%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-16.56%

Correlation

The correlation between XBJA and QMAR is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 3, 2022	0.85

The correlation between XBJA and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

XBJA vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XBJA	QMAR
Technology	38.4%	58.7%
Financial Services	11.0%	0.2%
Communication Services	10.8%	14.3%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	11.4%
Healthcare	8.4%	3.7%
Industrials	7.9%	2.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	6.4%
Energy	3.2%	0.5%
Utilities	2.1%	1.2%
Real Estate	1.8%	0.1%
Basic Materials	1.7%	1.0%

Return for Risk

XBJA vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

XBJA

XBJA Risk / Return Rank: 75
XBJA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
XBJA Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
XBJA Omega Ratio Rank: 88
XBJA Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
XBJA Martin Ratio Rank: 79

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
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.

XBJA vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - January (XBJA) 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.

	XBJA	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.19	3.19	-1.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.20	4.77	-1.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.74	-0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.42	6.49	-4.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.05	39.78	-25.73

XBJA vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XBJA Sharpe Ratio is 2.19, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XBJA 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.

Drawdowns

XBJA vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XBJA drawdown since its inception was -17.42%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBJA and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	XBJA	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.42%	-19.83%	+2.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.33%	-3.21%	-2.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.57%	-15.91%	+3.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.64%	-1.65%	+1.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.11%	-3.26%	+0.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.92%	0.52%	+0.40%

Volatility

XBJA vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator U.S. Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - January (XBJA) is 1.65%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 2.92%. This indicates that XBJA 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

	XBJA	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.65%	2.92%	-1.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.37%	5.59%	-0.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.92%	6.55%	-0.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.54%	14.01%	-2.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.54%	13.83%	-2.29%

XBJA vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

XBJA vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither XBJA nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XBJA and QMAR in my portfolio?

XBJA and QMAR have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XBJA or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (2.92%) compared to XBJA (1.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XBJA dropped -17.42% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, XBJA or QMAR?

On 3-year performance, QMAR leads with 15.65% vs 11.26% for XBJA. On fees, XBJA is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, XBJA has been the lower-risk option at 1.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XBJA or QMAR?

Over the 3-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 15.65% return vs 11.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XBJA or QMAR?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between XBJA and QMAR?

XBJA 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 XBJA and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs 2.19), 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.