DMAR vs. DJUL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - March) and DJUL (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - July) are both Options Trading funds from FT Vest. DMAR is actively managed, while DJUL is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, DMAR returned 7.74%/yr vs 8.92%/yr for DJUL. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.85% expense ratio.

Performance

DMAR vs. DJUL - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DMAR achieves a 7.21% return, which is significantly higher than DJUL's 4.89% return.

DMAR

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: 1.43%
• YTD: 7.21%
• 6M: 8.16%
• 1Y: 14.75%
• 3Y*: 12.11%
• 5Y*: 7.74%
• 10Y*: —

DJUL

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

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

DMAR vs. DJUL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - March	7.21%	9.13%	12.74%	12.25%	-5.48%	7.04%
DJUL FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - July	4.89%	13.31%	15.02%	18.08%	-8.28%	4.79%

Correlation

The correlation between DMAR and DJUL is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2021	0.85

The correlation between DMAR and DJUL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

DMAR vs. DJUL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DMAR	DJUL
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

DMAR vs. DJUL — Risk / Return Rank

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

DMAR

DMAR Risk / Return Rank: 97
DMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
DMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
DMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 98
DMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
DMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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

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.

DMAR vs. DJUL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	DMAR	DJUL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.07	2.88	+1.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	7.00	4.36	+2.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.04	1.61	+0.43
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.68	3.81	+5.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	62.37	20.56	+41.81
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DMAR vs. DJUL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DMAR Sharpe Ratio is 4.07, which is higher than the DJUL Sharpe Ratio of 2.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DMAR and DJUL, 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

	DMAR	DJUL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.07	2.88	+1.19
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.11	1.07	+0.04
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.17	1.12	+0.05

Drawdowns

DMAR vs. DJUL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DMAR drawdown since its inception was -9.84%, smaller than the maximum DJUL drawdown of -12.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DMAR and DJUL.

Drawdown Indicators

	DMAR	DJUL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.84%	-12.54%	+2.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.53%	-4.25%	+2.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.16%	-11.29%	+2.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-9.84%	-12.54%	+2.70%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.13%	0.00%	-0.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.85%	-1.99%	+0.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.24%	0.79%	-0.55%

Volatility

DMAR vs. DJUL - Volatility Comparison

FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - March (DMAR) has a higher volatility of 0.67% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - July (DJUL) at 0.57%. This indicates that DMAR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DJUL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DMAR	DJUL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.67%	0.57%	+0.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.74%	4.16%	-1.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.64%	5.64%	-2.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.04%	8.39%	-1.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.97%	7.94%	-0.97%

DMAR vs. DJUL - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

DMAR vs. DJUL - Dividend Comparison

Neither DMAR nor DJUL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DMAR and DJUL in my portfolio?

DMAR and DJUL have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DMAR or DJUL?

DMAR has higher volatility (0.67%) compared to DJUL (0.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DMAR dropped -9.84% vs DJUL's -12.54%.

Which ETF is better, DMAR or DJUL?

On 5-year performance, DJUL leads with 8.92% vs 7.74% for DMAR. Both ETFs have the same 0.85% expense ratio. On volatility, DJUL has been the lower-risk option at 0.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DMAR or DJUL?

Over the 5-year period, DJUL has performed better with a 8.92% return vs 7.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DMAR or DJUL?

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

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

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.07 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.