FEBT vs. JULU

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

FEBT (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF) and JULU (AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Jul ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FEBT is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Allianz, while JULU is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Allianz. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FEBT returned 17.01% vs 16.04% for JULU. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.74% expense ratio.

Performance

FEBT vs. JULU - 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. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Jul ETF (JULU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with FEBT having a 8.50% return and JULU slightly lower at 8.09%.

FEBT

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 0.68%
• 6M: 7.24%
• YTD: 8.50%
• 1Y: 17.01%
• 3Y*: 14.96%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

JULU

• 1D: -0.42%
• 1M: -0.14%
• 6M: 7.12%
• YTD: 8.09%
• 1Y: 16.04%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FEBT vs. JULU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	8.50%	12.72%	5.90%
JULU AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Jul ETF	8.09%	12.19%	5.76%

Correlation

The correlation between FEBT and JULU is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2024	0.92

The correlation between FEBT and JULU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FEBT vs. JULU — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEBT

FEBT Risk / Return Rank: 83
FEBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
FEBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FEBT Omega Ratio Rank: 86
FEBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
FEBT Martin Ratio Rank: 86

JULU

JULU Risk / Return Rank: 57
JULU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
JULU Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
JULU Omega Ratio Rank: 55
JULU Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
JULU Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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. JULU - 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. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Jul ETF (JULU). 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.

	FEBT	JULU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.18	1.54	+0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.15	2.15	+1.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.28	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.83	2.29	+0.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.96	8.68	+5.28

FEBT vs. JULU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBT Sharpe Ratio is 2.18, which is higher than the JULU Sharpe Ratio of 1.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBT and JULU, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FEBT vs. JULU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBT drawdown since its inception was -13.19%, which is greater than JULU's maximum drawdown of -12.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBT and JULU.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBT	JULU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.19%	-12.46%	-0.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.04%	-7.04%	+1.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.19%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.20%	-1.31%	+1.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.16%	-1.93%	+0.77%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.22%	1.85%	-0.63%

Volatility

FEBT vs. JULU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) is 2.08%, while AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Jul ETF (JULU) has a volatility of 3.25%. This indicates that FEBT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than JULU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FEBT	JULU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.08%	3.25%	-1.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.41%	8.53%	-2.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.85%	10.48%	-2.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.71%	11.58%	-1.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.71%	11.58%	-1.87%

FEBT vs. JULU - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FEBT vs. JULU - Dividend Comparison

Neither FEBT nor JULU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.28%
JULU AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Jul ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEBT and JULU in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, FEBT and JULU 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, FEBT or JULU?

JULU has higher volatility (3.25%) compared to FEBT (2.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FEBT dropped -13.19% vs JULU's -12.46%.

Which ETF is better, FEBT or JULU?

On 1-year performance, FEBT leads with 17.01% vs 16.04% for JULU. Both ETFs have the same 0.74% expense ratio. On volatility, FEBT has been the lower-risk option at 2.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FEBT or JULU?

Over the 1-year period, FEBT has performed better with a 17.01% return vs 16.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEBT or JULU?

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

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FEBT or JULU?

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

What is the main difference between FEBT and JULU?

FEBT is categorized as Options Trading, while JULU is Defined Outcome.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FEBT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.18 vs 1.54), 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.