AUGW vs. FLJJ

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

AUGW (AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Aug ETF) and FLJJ (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF) are both Options Trading funds from Allianz. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, AUGW returned 13.10% vs 15.33% for FLJJ. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.74% expense ratio.

Performance

AUGW vs. FLJJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Aug ETF (AUGW) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF (FLJJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AUGW achieves a 4.26% return, which is significantly lower than FLJJ's 5.01% return.

AUGW

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: 1.25%
• YTD: 4.26%
• 6M: 4.69%
• 1Y: 13.10%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLJJ

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 1.60%
• YTD: 5.01%
• 6M: 5.83%
• 1Y: 15.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AUGW vs. FLJJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
AUGW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Aug ETF	4.26%	11.19%	11.47%
FLJJ Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF	5.01%	11.35%	14.19%

Correlation

The correlation between AUGW and FLJJ is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2024	0.88

The correlation between AUGW and FLJJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

AUGW vs. FLJJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AUGW	FLJJ
Technology	36.2%	36.2%
Financial Services	11.9%	11.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	10.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	8.4%
Industrials	8.1%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.9%
Energy	3.5%	3.5%
Utilities	2.3%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.8%

Return for Risk

AUGW vs. FLJJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

AUGW

AUGW Risk / Return Rank: 88
AUGW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
AUGW Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
AUGW Omega Ratio Rank: 91
AUGW Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
AUGW Martin Ratio Rank: 92

FLJJ

FLJJ Risk / Return Rank: 89
FLJJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
FLJJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
FLJJ Omega Ratio Rank: 94
FLJJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
FLJJ Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

AUGW vs. FLJJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Aug ETF (AUGW) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF (FLJJ). 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.

	AUGW	FLJJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.81	3.03	-0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.24	4.68	-0.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.65	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.11	3.99	+0.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	22.30	20.94	+1.35
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AUGW vs. FLJJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AUGW Sharpe Ratio is 2.81, which is comparable to the FLJJ Sharpe Ratio of 3.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AUGW and FLJJ, 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

	AUGW	FLJJ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.81	3.03	-0.22
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.68	2.14	-0.45

Drawdowns

AUGW vs. FLJJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AUGW drawdown since its inception was -8.76%, which is greater than FLJJ's maximum drawdown of -6.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AUGW and FLJJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	AUGW	FLJJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.76%	-6.91%	-1.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.20%	-3.86%	+0.66%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.01%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.74%	-0.78%	+0.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.59%	0.73%	-0.14%

Volatility

AUGW vs. FLJJ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Aug ETF (AUGW) is 0.45%, while Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF (FLJJ) has a volatility of 0.83%. This indicates that AUGW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLJJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AUGW	FLJJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.45%	0.83%	-0.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.41%	3.58%	-0.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.69%	5.08%	-0.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.76%	6.20%	+0.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.76%	6.20%	+0.56%

AUGW vs. FLJJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both AUGW and FLJJ have an expense ratio of 0.74%.

Dividends

AUGW vs. FLJJ - Dividend Comparison

Neither AUGW nor FLJJ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AUGW and FLJJ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, AUGW and FLJJ move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, AUGW or FLJJ?

FLJJ has higher volatility (0.83%) compared to AUGW (0.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AUGW dropped -8.76% vs FLJJ's -6.91%.

Which ETF is better, AUGW or FLJJ?

On 1-year performance, FLJJ leads with 15.33% vs 13.10% for AUGW. Both ETFs have the same 0.74% expense ratio. On volatility, AUGW has been the lower-risk option at 0.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AUGW or FLJJ?

Over the 1-year period, FLJJ has performed better with a 15.33% return vs 13.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AUGW or FLJJ?

AUGW and FLJJ have the same expense ratio: 0.74% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AUGW or FLJJ?

AUGW and FLJJ have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLJJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.03 vs 2.81), 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.