APRW vs. QCAP

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

APRW (AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF) and QCAP (FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April) are both exchange-traded funds - APRW is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Allianz, while QCAP is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by FT Vest. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, APRW returned 11.33% vs 7.98% for QCAP. Their correlation of 0.85 means they have usually moved in the same direction. APRW charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QCAP.

Performance

APRW vs. QCAP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW) and FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April (QCAP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, APRW achieves a 7.14% return, which is significantly higher than QCAP's 4.16% return.

APRW

• 1D: 0.28%
• 1M: 0.61%
• 6M: 6.65%
• YTD: 7.14%
• 1Y: 11.33%
• 3Y*: 9.57%
• 5Y*: 7.07%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.37%

QCAP

• 1D: 0.37%
• 1M: -0.24%
• 6M: 3.70%
• YTD: 4.16%
• 1Y: 7.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 9.82%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
APRW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF	$172.15K	$1.27M	$609.35K
QCAP FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April	$301.74K	$289.61K	$395.99K

APRW vs. QCAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
APRW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF	7.14%	6.18%	11.21%
QCAP FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April	4.16%	7.13%	10.87%

Correlation

The correlation between APRW and QCAP is 0.79, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 22, 2024	0.85

The correlation between APRW and QCAP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

APRW vs. QCAP — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

APRW

APRW Risk / Return Rank: 98
APRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
APRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
APRW Omega Ratio Rank: 98
APRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
APRW Martin Ratio Rank: 98

QCAP

QCAP Risk / Return Rank: 85
QCAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
QCAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
QCAP Omega Ratio Rank: 90
QCAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
QCAP Martin Ratio Rank: 92

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

APRW vs. QCAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW) and FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April (QCAP). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	APRW	QCAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.98	1.85	+2.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	6.77	2.70	+4.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.94	1.42	+0.53
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	12.40	3.00	+9.40
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	61.04	16.28	+44.76

APRW vs. QCAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current APRW Sharpe Ratio is 3.98, which is higher than the QCAP Sharpe Ratio of 1.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of APRW and QCAP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

APRW vs. QCAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum APRW drawdown since its inception was -9.61%, roughly equal to the maximum QCAP drawdown of -9.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for APRW and QCAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	APRW	QCAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.61%	-9.17%	-0.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.89%	-2.58%	+1.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.61%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-9.61%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.10%	+1.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.10%	-0.55%	-0.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.18%	0.48%	-0.30%

Volatility

APRW vs. QCAP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW) is 0.95%, while FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April (QCAP) has a volatility of 2.11%. This indicates that APRW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QCAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	APRW	QCAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.95%	2.11%	-1.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.30%	3.88%	-1.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.79%	4.20%	-1.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.73%	8.71%	-1.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.35%	8.71%	-2.36%

APRW vs. QCAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

APRW has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than QCAP's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

APRW vs. QCAP - Dividend Comparison

Neither APRW nor QCAP has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
APRW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	3.67%
QCAP FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both APRW and QCAP in my portfolio?

APRW and QCAP have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, APRW or QCAP?

QCAP has higher volatility (2.11%) compared to APRW (0.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, APRW dropped -9.61% vs QCAP's -9.17%.

Which ETF is better, APRW or QCAP?

On 1-year performance, APRW leads with 11.33% vs 7.98% for QCAP. On fees, APRW is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, APRW has been the lower-risk option at 0.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, APRW or QCAP?

Over the 1-year period, APRW has performed better with a 11.33% return vs 7.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, APRW or QCAP?

APRW is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCAP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, APRW or QCAP?

APRW and QCAP have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between APRW and QCAP?

APRW is categorized as Options Trading, while QCAP is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Allianz and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for APRW and 0.90% for QCAP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

APRW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.98 vs 1.85), 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.