PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FEBT vs. FLJJ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FEBT vs. FLJJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF (FLJJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEBT achieves a 6.90% return, which is significantly higher than FLJJ's 5.12% return.


FEBT

1D
-0.60%
1M
-0.24%
YTD
6.90%
6M
6.53%
1Y
18.40%
3Y*
15.49%
5Y*
10Y*

FLJJ

1D
-0.25%
1M
0.67%
YTD
5.12%
6M
5.26%
1Y
14.55%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FEBT vs. FLJJ - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between FEBT and FLJJ is 0.94, 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

0.94

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 1, 2024

0.92

The correlation between FEBT and FLJJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.94 - 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

FEBT vs. FLJJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEBT
FEBT Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
FEBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8181
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FEBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
FEBT Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
FEBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
FEBT Martin Ratio Rank: 8282
Martin Ratio Rank

FLJJ
FLJJ Risk / Return Rank: 9090
Overall Rank
FLJJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLJJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 9595
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLJJ Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
FLJJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLJJ Martin Ratio Rank: 9191
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

FEBT vs. FLJJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) 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.

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.


FEBTFLJJDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.71

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.36

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.45

1.65

-0.19

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.06

3.79

-0.73

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.28

20.02

-4.74

FEBT vs. FLJJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBT Sharpe Ratio is 2.37, which is comparable to the FLJJ Sharpe Ratio of 3.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBT 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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

FEBT vs. FLJJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBT drawdown since its inception was -13.19%, which is greater than FLJJ's maximum drawdown of -6.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBT and FLJJ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FEBTFLJJDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-13.19%

-6.91%

-6.28%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.04%

-3.86%

-2.18%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.19%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.26%

-0.25%

-1.01%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.17%

-0.77%

-0.40%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.21%

0.73%

+0.48%

Volatility

FEBT vs. FLJJ - Volatility Comparison

Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) has a higher volatility of 2.39% compared to Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF (FLJJ) at 1.28%. This indicates that FEBT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLJJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FEBTFLJJDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.39%

1.28%

+1.11%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.28%

3.76%

+2.52%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

7.84%

4.83%

+3.01%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

9.76%

6.19%

+3.57%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.76%

6.19%

+3.57%

FEBT vs. FLJJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

FEBT vs. FLJJ - Dividend Comparison

Neither FEBT nor FLJJ has paid dividends to shareholders.


Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.94, FEBT 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.

FEBT has higher volatility (2.39%) compared to FLJJ (1.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FEBT dropped -13.19% vs FLJJ's -6.91%.

On 1-year performance, FEBT leads with 18.40% vs 14.55% for FLJJ. Both ETFs have the same 0.74% expense ratio. On volatility, FLJJ has been the lower-risk option at 1.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, FEBT has performed better with a 18.40% return vs 14.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

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

FLJJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.07 vs 2.37), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FEBT and FLJJ

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