XMAR vs. ISWN

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

XMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March) and ISWN (Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF) are both Options Trading funds. XMAR is actively managed, while ISWN is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, XMAR returned 11.18%/yr vs 8.40%/yr for ISWN. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XMAR charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for ISWN.

Performance

XMAR vs. ISWN - 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 Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF (ISWN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMAR achieves a 6.66% return, which is significantly higher than ISWN's 5.11% return.

XMAR

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

ISWN

• 1D: 0.44%
• 1M: 1.41%
• YTD: 5.11%
• 6M: 6.36%
• 1Y: 13.37%
• 3Y*: 8.40%
• 5Y*: 0.01%
• 10Y*: —

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

XMAR vs. ISWN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
XMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March	6.66%	10.30%	10.10%	10.30%
ISWN Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF	5.11%	23.23%	-3.96%	4.28%

Correlation

The correlation between XMAR and ISWN is 0.53, 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	0.53
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2023	0.47

The correlation between XMAR and ISWN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

XMAR vs. ISWN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XMAR	ISWN
Technology	36.2%	10.3%
Financial Services	11.9%	1.6%
Communication Services	10.9%	4.5%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	7.7%
Healthcare	8.4%	10.6%
Industrials	8.1%	19.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	6.7%
Energy	3.5%	4.0%
Utilities	2.3%	4.0%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.8%	5.9%

Return for Risk

XMAR vs. ISWN — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMAR

XMAR Risk / Return Rank: 97
XMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
XMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
XMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 98
XMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
XMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

ISWN

ISWN Risk / Return Rank: 30
ISWN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
ISWN Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
ISWN Omega Ratio Rank: 30
ISWN Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
ISWN Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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. ISWN - 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 Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF (ISWN). 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	ISWN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	4.40	1.10	+3.30
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	7.61	1.61	+6.00
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.22	1.20	+1.02
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.04	1.47	+7.57
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	69.02	4.98	+64.03
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. ISWN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMAR Sharpe Ratio is 4.40, which is higher than the ISWN Sharpe Ratio of 1.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMAR and ISWN, 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

	XMAR	ISWN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.40	1.10	+3.30
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.00	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.13	0.02	+2.11

Drawdowns

XMAR vs. ISWN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMAR drawdown since its inception was -7.29%, smaller than the maximum ISWN drawdown of -32.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMAR and ISWN.

Drawdown Indicators

	XMAR	ISWN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-7.29%	-32.35%	+25.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.48%	-9.63%	+8.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.29%	-13.77%	+6.48%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-32.35%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.15%	-3.26%	+3.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.30%	-16.18%	+15.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.19%	2.84%	-2.65%

Volatility

XMAR vs. ISWN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) is 0.66%, while Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF (ISWN) has a volatility of 4.82%. This indicates that XMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ISWN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XMAR	ISWN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.66%	4.82%	-4.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.40%	10.08%	-7.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.01%	12.18%	-9.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.56%	11.67%	-6.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.56%	11.57%	-6.01%

XMAR vs. ISWN - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMAR has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than ISWN's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMAR vs. ISWN - Dividend Comparison

XMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ISWN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.80%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ISWN Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF	2.80%	2.89%	3.27%	2.91%	2.00%	0.76%
XMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XMAR and ISWN in my portfolio?

XMAR and ISWN have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XMAR or ISWN?

ISWN has higher volatility (4.82%) compared to XMAR (0.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XMAR dropped -7.29% vs ISWN's -32.35%.

Which ETF is better, XMAR or ISWN?

On 3-year performance, XMAR leads with 11.18% vs 8.40% for ISWN. On fees, ISWN is cheaper at 0.49% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, XMAR or ISWN?

Over the 3-year period, XMAR has performed better with a 11.18% return vs 8.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XMAR or ISWN?

ISWN is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for XMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, XMAR or ISWN?

ISWN has the higher dividend yield at 2.80%, compared with 0.00% for XMAR.

What is the main difference between XMAR and ISWN?

They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Amplify. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for XMAR and 0.49% for ISWN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.40 vs 1.10), 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.