XIJN vs. QMAR
XIJN (FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer & Premium Income ETF - June) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - XIJN is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, XIJN returned 7.42% vs 23.38% for QMAR. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XIJN charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.
Performance
XIJN vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XIJN achieves a 2.49% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.
XIJN
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 0.35%
- YTD
- 2.49%
- 6M
- 3.12%
- 1Y
- 7.42%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
QMAR
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- 2.81%
- YTD
- 13.06%
- 6M
- 14.01%
- 1Y
- 23.38%
- 3Y*
- 16.73%
- 5Y*
- 12.13%
- 10Y*
- —
XIJN vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
XIJN FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer & Premium Income ETF - June | 2.49% | 7.47% | 3.82% |
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 13.06% | 10.89% | 7.13% |
Correlation
The correlation between XIJN and QMAR is 0.64, 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 | 0.64 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2024 | 0.72 |
The correlation between XIJN and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
XIJN vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank
XIJN
QMAR
XIJN vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer & Premium Income ETF - June (XIJN) 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.
| XIJN | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 3.97 | 3.86 | +0.11 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 7.19 | 6.05 | +1.14 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 2.04 | 1.93 | +0.11 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 9.95 | 7.31 | +2.64 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 53.25 | 52.66 | +0.59 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| XIJN | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.97 | 3.86 | +0.11 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.87 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.60 | 0.91 | +0.69 |
Drawdowns
XIJN vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XIJN drawdown since its inception was -4.65%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XIJN and QMAR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XIJN | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -4.65% | -19.83% | +15.18% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.75% | -3.21% | +2.46% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -15.91% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -19.83% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.19% | +0.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.15% | -3.28% | +3.13% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.14% | 0.45% | -0.31% |
Volatility
XIJN vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer & Premium Income ETF - June (XIJN) is 0.20%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 1.27%. This indicates that XIJN 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XIJN | QMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.20% | 1.27% | -1.07% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.25% | 4.85% | -3.60% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.88% | 6.09% | -4.21% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.51% | 13.97% | -9.46% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.51% | 13.85% | -9.34% |
XIJN vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison
XIJN has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.
Dividends
XIJN vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison
XIJN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.95%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
XIJN FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer & Premium Income ETF - June | 6.95% | 6.62% | 2.68% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XIJN and QMAR have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
QMAR has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to XIJN (0.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XIJN dropped -4.65% vs QMAR's -19.83%.
On 1-year performance, QMAR leads with 23.38% vs 7.42% for XIJN. On fees, XIJN is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, XIJN has been the lower-risk option at 0.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 23.38% return vs 7.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XIJN is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.
XIJN has the higher dividend yield at 6.95%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.
XIJN is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for XIJN and 0.90% for QMAR.
XIJN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.97 vs 3.86), 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.
Find the right allocation for XIJN and QMAR
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer