XMAR vs. FEBT

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT).

XMAR and FEBT are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. XMAR is an actively managed fund by FT Vest. It was launched on Mar 16, 2023. FEBT is an actively managed fund by Allianz. It was launched on Feb 1, 2023.

Performance

XMAR vs. FEBT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

XMAR vs. FEBT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
XMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March	1.40%	10.30%	10.10%	10.30%
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	-1.69%	12.72%	17.29%	17.67%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMAR achieves a 1.40% return, which is significantly higher than FEBT's -1.69% return.

XMAR

• 1D: 1.20%
• 1M: 0.60%
• YTD: 1.40%
• 6M: 3.23%
• 1Y: 10.19%
• 3Y*: 10.11%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FEBT

• 1D: 2.03%
• 1M: -3.34%
• YTD: -1.69%
• 6M: 1.12%
• 1Y: 14.62%
• 3Y*: 14.14%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XMAR vs. FEBT - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMAR has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than FEBT's 0.74% expense ratio.

XMAR

FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March

FEBT

Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF

Return for Risk

XMAR vs. FEBT — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMAR

XMAR Risk / Return Rank: 77
XMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
XMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
XMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 95
XMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
XMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 86

FEBT

FEBT Risk / Return Rank: 70
FEBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
FEBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
FEBT Omega Ratio Rank: 74
FEBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
FEBT Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

XMAR vs. FEBT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT). 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.

	XMAR	FEBT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.30	1.17	+0.14
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.96	1.76	+0.21
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.28	+0.19
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.52	1.70	-0.18
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.40	8.88	+1.52
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XMAR vs. FEBT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMAR Sharpe Ratio is 1.30, which is comparable to the FEBT Sharpe Ratio of 1.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMAR and FEBT, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	XMAR	FEBT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.30	1.17	+0.14
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.90	1.37	+0.52

Correlation

The correlation between XMAR and FEBT is 0.80, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

XMAR vs. FEBT - Dividend Comparison

Neither XMAR nor FEBT has paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024
XMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.28%

Drawdowns

XMAR vs. FEBT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMAR drawdown since its inception was -7.29%, smaller than the maximum FEBT drawdown of -13.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMAR and FEBT.

Drawdown Indicators

	XMAR	FEBT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-7.29%	-13.19%	+5.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.79%	-8.86%	+2.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.27%	-4.13%	+3.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.32%	-1.22%	+0.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.00%	1.70%	-0.70%

Volatility

XMAR vs. FEBT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) is 1.73%, while Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) has a volatility of 3.88%. This indicates that XMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FEBT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XMAR	FEBT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.73%	3.88%	-2.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.12%	6.11%	-3.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.86%	12.59%	-4.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.64%	9.88%	-4.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.64%	9.88%	-4.24%