GMAR vs METU
FT Vest US Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March vs Direxion Daily META Bull 2X ETF
Which is better, GMAR or METU?
GMAR has been ahead.
GMAR has a lower expense ratio. GMAR led over 1Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | GMAR | METU |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.85%Best | 1.02% |
| AUM | $428M | $506M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 2.70% |
| Holdings | 10 | 20 |
| YTD Return | +10.92%Best | +2.89% |
| 1Y Return | +13.38%Best | -17.61% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +12.33% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 4.2%Best | 70.0% |
| Max Drawdown | -9.1%Best | -63.9% |
| $10,000 over 2.4 years | $13,030Best | $12,474 |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Direxion Shares ETF Trust |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Mar 17, 2023 | Jun 5, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.4 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 5, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.4 years).
GMAR vs METU growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 2.4 years both funds cover.
GMAR vs METU Performance
FT Vest US Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Direxion Daily META Bull 2X ETF (METU) is an ETF from Direxion Shares ETF Trust. Over the past year GMAR returned +13.38% while METU returned -17.61%. Year to date, GMAR is up 10.92% versus a gain of 2.89% for METU.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
METU has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 70.0% compared with 4.2% for GMAR. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -9.1% for GMAR and -63.9% for METU. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.49. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GMAR charges 0.85% per year while METU charges 1.02%. On a $10,000 position that is $85 vs $102 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GMAR currently yields 0.00% against 2.70% for METU.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of GMAR and METU you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, GMAR or METU?
GMAR has an expense ratio of 0.85% while METU charges 1.02%. GMAR is the cheaper option, by $17 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, GMAR or METU?
Over the past year GMAR returned +13.38% vs -17.61% for METU, so GMAR leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), GMAR annualized +11.66% vs +9.65% for METU. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GMAR or METU?
METU has been the more volatile fund at 70.0% annualized versus 4.2% for GMAR. Worst drawdown: GMAR -9.1% vs METU -63.9%.
Should I hold both GMAR and METU?
GMAR and METU have a monthly-return correlation of 0.49, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, GMAR or METU?
GMAR yields 0.00% while METU yields 2.70%, so METU currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is METU better than GMAR?
GMAR has a lower expense ratio. GMAR led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.