DJUL vs. XMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DJUL (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - July) and XMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds from FT Vest. DJUL is passively managed, while XMAR is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, DJUL returned 14.05%/yr vs 11.18%/yr for XMAR. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.85% expense ratio.

Performance

DJUL vs. XMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - July (DJUL) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DJUL achieves a 4.89% return, which is significantly lower than XMAR's 6.65% return.

DJUL

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 1.61%
• YTD: 4.89%
• 6M: 5.60%
• 1Y: 16.12%
• 3Y*: 14.05%
• 5Y*: 8.92%
• 10Y*: —

XMAR

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 1.37%
• YTD: 6.65%
• 6M: 7.38%
• 1Y: 12.89%
• 3Y*: 11.18%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

DJUL vs. XMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
DJUL FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - July	4.89%	13.31%	15.02%	15.91%
XMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March	6.65%	10.30%	10.10%	10.30%

Correlation

The correlation between DJUL and XMAR is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2023	0.79

The correlation between DJUL and XMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

DJUL vs. XMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DJUL	XMAR
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

DJUL vs. XMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

DJUL

DJUL Risk / Return Rank: 87
DJUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
DJUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
DJUL Omega Ratio Rank: 92
DJUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
DJUL Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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

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.

DJUL vs. XMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - July (DJUL) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR). 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.

	DJUL	XMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.88	4.31	-1.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.36	7.46	-3.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.61	2.20	-0.59
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.81	8.76	-4.95
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.56	66.63	-46.07
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DJUL vs. XMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DJUL Sharpe Ratio is 2.88, which is lower than the XMAR Sharpe Ratio of 4.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DJUL and XMAR, 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

	DJUL	XMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.88	4.31	-1.43
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.07	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.12	2.13	-1.02

Drawdowns

DJUL vs. XMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DJUL drawdown since its inception was -12.54%, which is greater than XMAR's maximum drawdown of -7.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DJUL and XMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	DJUL	XMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.54%	-7.29%	-5.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.25%	-1.48%	-2.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.29%	-7.29%	-4.00%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-12.54%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.16%	+0.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.99%	-0.30%	-1.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.79%	0.19%	+0.60%

Volatility

DJUL vs. XMAR - Volatility Comparison

FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - July (DJUL) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) have volatilities of 0.57% and 0.58%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DJUL	XMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.57%	0.58%	-0.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.16%	2.40%	+1.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.64%	3.01%	+2.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.39%	5.55%	+2.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.94%	5.55%	+2.39%

DJUL vs. XMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both DJUL and XMAR have an expense ratio of 0.85%.

Dividends

DJUL vs. XMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither DJUL nor XMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DJUL and XMAR in my portfolio?

DJUL and XMAR have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DJUL or XMAR?

XMAR has higher volatility (0.58%) compared to DJUL (0.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DJUL dropped -12.54% vs XMAR's -7.29%.

Which ETF is better, DJUL or XMAR?

On 3-year performance, DJUL leads with 14.05% vs 11.18% for XMAR. Both ETFs have the same 0.85% expense ratio. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DJUL or XMAR?

Over the 3-year period, DJUL has performed better with a 14.05% return vs 11.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DJUL or XMAR?

DJUL and XMAR have the same expense ratio: 0.85% per year.

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

DJUL and XMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.31 vs 2.88), 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.