APXM vs. PMJA
APXM (FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April) and PMJA (PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - January) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, APXM returned 5.14% vs 7.51% for PMJA. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. APXM charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PMJA.
Performance
APXM vs. PMJA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, APXM achieves a 2.01% return, which is significantly lower than PMJA's 2.36% return.
APXM
- 1D
- -0.05%
- 1M
- 0.14%
- YTD
- 2.01%
- 6M
- 2.14%
- 1Y
- 5.14%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PMJA
- 1D
- -0.04%
- 1M
- 0.24%
- YTD
- 2.36%
- 6M
- 2.49%
- 1Y
- 7.51%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
APXM vs. PMJA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
APXM FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April | 2.01% | 5.24% |
PMJA PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - January | 2.36% | 8.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between APXM and PMJA is 0.71, 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 | 0.71 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 21, 2025 | 0.72 |
The correlation between APXM and PMJA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
APXM vs. PMJA — Risk / Return Rank
APXM
PMJA
APXM vs. PMJA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April (APXM) and PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - January (PMJA). 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.
| APXM | PMJA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.58 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.11 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 2.22 | 1.84 | +0.37 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 8.62 | 5.19 | +3.43 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 61.17 | 25.79 | +35.38 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
APXM vs. PMJA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum APXM drawdown since its inception was -0.60%, smaller than the maximum PMJA drawdown of -2.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for APXM and PMJA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| APXM | PMJA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -0.60% | -2.98% | +2.38% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.60% | -1.45% | +0.85% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.17% | -0.13% | -0.04% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.04% | -0.33% | +0.29% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.08% | 0.29% | -0.21% |
Volatility
APXM vs. PMJA - Volatility Comparison
FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April (APXM) has a higher volatility of 0.73% compared to PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - January (PMJA) at 0.53%. This indicates that APXM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PMJA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| APXM | PMJA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.73% | 0.53% | +0.20% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.04% | 1.57% | -0.53% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.21% | 2.04% | -0.83% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 1.35% | 2.84% | -1.49% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 1.35% | 2.84% | -1.49% |
APXM vs. PMJA - Expense Ratio Comparison
APXM has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than PMJA's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
APXM vs. PMJA - Dividend Comparison
Neither APXM nor PMJA has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
APXM and PMJA have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
APXM has higher volatility (0.73%) compared to PMJA (0.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, APXM dropped -0.60% vs PMJA's -2.98%.
On 1-year performance, PMJA leads with 7.51% vs 5.14% for APXM. On fees, PMJA is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PMJA has been the lower-risk option at 0.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, PMJA has performed better with a 7.51% return vs 5.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PMJA is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for APXM.
APXM and PMJA have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: First Trust and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for APXM and 0.50% for PMJA.
APXM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.29 vs 3.71), 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.
Find the right allocation for APXM and PMJA
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