FEBW vs. JULW

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FEBW (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Feb ETF) and JULW (AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Jul ETF) are both Options Trading funds from Allianz. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FEBW returned 10.76%/yr vs 11.21%/yr for JULW. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.74% expense ratio.

Performance

FEBW vs. JULW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Feb ETF (FEBW) and AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Jul ETF (JULW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEBW achieves a 4.48% return, which is significantly higher than JULW's 4.13% return.

FEBW

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 0.34%
• YTD: 4.48%
• 6M: 4.67%
• 1Y: 13.16%
• 3Y*: 10.76%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

JULW

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.46%
• YTD: 4.13%
• 6M: 4.26%
• 1Y: 12.86%
• 3Y*: 11.21%
• 5Y*: 9.00%
• 10Y*: —

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

FEBW vs. JULW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FEBW Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Feb ETF	4.48%	9.63%	11.37%	11.26%
JULW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Jul ETF	4.13%	11.57%	12.39%	12.21%

Correlation

The correlation between FEBW and JULW is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 1, 2023	0.85

The correlation between FEBW and JULW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FEBW vs. JULW — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEBW

FEBW Risk / Return Rank: 84
FEBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
FEBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
FEBW Omega Ratio Rank: 91
FEBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
FEBW Martin Ratio Rank: 85

JULW

JULW Risk / Return Rank: 91
JULW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
JULW Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
JULW Omega Ratio Rank: 94
JULW Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
JULW Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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.

FEBW vs. JULW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Feb ETF (FEBW) and AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Jul ETF (JULW). 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.

	FEBW	JULW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.73	2.98	-0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.97	4.75	-0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.67	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.31	4.36	-1.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.02	24.86	-7.83

FEBW vs. JULW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBW Sharpe Ratio is 2.73, which is comparable to the JULW Sharpe Ratio of 2.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBW and JULW, 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

FEBW vs. JULW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBW drawdown since its inception was -8.82%, smaller than the maximum JULW drawdown of -9.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBW and JULW.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBW	JULW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.82%	-9.49%	+0.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.00%	-2.96%	-1.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.82%	-9.49%	+0.67%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-9.49%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.27%	0.00%	-0.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.67%	-0.91%	+0.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.77%	0.52%	+0.25%

Volatility

FEBW vs. JULW - Volatility Comparison

Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Feb ETF (FEBW) has a higher volatility of 1.41% compared to AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Jul ETF (JULW) at 0.35%. This indicates that FEBW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than JULW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FEBW	JULW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.41%	0.35%	+1.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.99%	3.21%	+0.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.85%	4.34%	+0.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.30%	6.89%	-0.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.30%	6.51%	-0.21%

FEBW vs. JULW - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FEBW and JULW have an expense ratio of 0.74%.

Dividends

FEBW vs. JULW - Dividend Comparison

Neither FEBW nor JULW has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FEBW Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Feb ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.14%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
JULW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Jul ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	3.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEBW and JULW in my portfolio?

FEBW and JULW have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FEBW or JULW?

FEBW has higher volatility (1.41%) compared to JULW (0.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FEBW dropped -8.82% vs JULW's -9.49%.

Which ETF is better, FEBW or JULW?

On 3-year performance, JULW leads with 11.21% vs 10.76% for FEBW. Both ETFs have the same 0.74% expense ratio. On volatility, JULW has been the lower-risk option at 0.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FEBW or JULW?

Over the 3-year period, JULW has performed better with a 11.21% return vs 10.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEBW or JULW?

FEBW and JULW have the same expense ratio: 0.74% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FEBW or JULW?

FEBW and JULW have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JULW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.98 vs 2.73), 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.