PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XMAR vs. GSG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XMAR vs. GSG - 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 iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (GSG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMAR achieves a 6.66% return, which is significantly lower than GSG's 41.50% return.


XMAR

1D
-0.15%
1M
1.13%
YTD
6.66%
6M
7.46%
1Y
13.17%
3Y*
11.18%
5Y*
10Y*

GSG

1D
0.49%
1M
-3.72%
YTD
41.50%
6M
40.89%
1Y
51.06%
3Y*
19.01%
5Y*
15.80%
10Y*
7.61%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMAR vs. GSG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
XMAR
FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March
6.66%10.30%10.10%10.30%
GSG
iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust
41.50%5.93%8.52%5.47%

Correlation

The correlation between XMAR and GSG is -0.20, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.20

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-0.01

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2023

0.02

The correlation between XMAR and GSG shifts across timeframes, from -0.20 (1 year) to 0.02 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

XMAR vs. GSG — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMAR
XMAR Risk / Return Rank: 9797
Overall Rank
XMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9696
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
XMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 9696
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 9898
Martin Ratio Rank

GSG
GSG Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
GSG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GSG Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
GSG Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
GSG Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
GSG Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
Martin Ratio Rank
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. GSG - 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 iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (GSG). 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.


XMARGSGDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

4.40

2.24

+2.16

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

7.61

2.86

+4.76

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

2.22

1.40

+0.82

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

9.04

5.72

+3.32

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

69.02

15.15

+53.87

XMAR vs. GSG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMAR Sharpe Ratio is 4.40, which is higher than the GSG Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMAR and GSG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


XMARGSGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.40

2.24

+2.16

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.70

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.35

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

2.13

-0.09

+2.22

Drawdowns

XMAR vs. GSG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMAR drawdown since its inception was -7.29%, smaller than the maximum GSG drawdown of -89.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMAR and GSG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XMARGSGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-7.29%

-89.62%

+82.33%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-1.48%

-9.46%

+7.98%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.29%

-14.94%

+7.65%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.12%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-57.64%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.15%

-57.28%

+57.13%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.30%

-63.72%

+63.42%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.19%

3.57%

-3.38%

Volatility

XMAR vs. GSG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) is 0.66%, while iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (GSG) has a volatility of 7.89%. This indicates that XMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GSG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XMARGSGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.66%

7.89%

-7.23%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.40%

20.41%

-18.01%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.01%

23.01%

-20.00%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.56%

22.61%

-17.05%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5.56%

22.03%

-16.47%

XMAR vs. GSG - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMAR has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than GSG's 0.75% expense ratio.


Dividends

XMAR vs. GSG - Dividend Comparison

Neither XMAR nor GSG has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


XMAR and GSG have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GSG has higher volatility (7.89%) compared to XMAR (0.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XMAR dropped -7.29% vs GSG's -89.62%.

On 3-year performance, GSG leads with 19.01% vs 11.18% for XMAR. On fees, GSG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, XMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, GSG has performed better with a 19.01% return vs 11.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GSG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for XMAR.

XMAR and GSG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

XMAR is categorized as Options Trading, while GSG is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for XMAR and 0.75% for GSG.

XMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.40 vs 2.24), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMAR and GSG

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