FJUL vs. DMAR

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

FJUL (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July) and DMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds from FT Vest. FJUL is passively managed, while DMAR is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FJUL returned 11.43%/yr vs 7.83%/yr for DMAR. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.85% expense ratio.

Performance

FJUL vs. DMAR - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FJUL achieves a 5.89% return, which is significantly lower than DMAR's 7.32% return.

FJUL

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 1.82%
• YTD: 5.89%
• 6M: 6.81%
• 1Y: 19.13%
• 3Y*: 16.43%
• 5Y*: 11.43%
• 10Y*: —

DMAR

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 1.36%
• YTD: 7.32%
• 6M: 8.37%
• 1Y: 15.16%
• 3Y*: 12.15%
• 5Y*: 7.83%
• 10Y*: —

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

FJUL vs. DMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FJUL FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July	5.89%	14.19%	17.65%	21.33%	-6.25%	8.10%
DMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - March	7.32%	9.13%	12.74%	12.25%	-5.48%	7.04%

Correlation

The correlation between FJUL and DMAR 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	0.88
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2021	0.87

The correlation between FJUL and DMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

FJUL vs. DMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FJUL	DMAR
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

FJUL vs. DMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

FJUL

FJUL Risk / Return Rank: 83
FJUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
FJUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
FJUL Omega Ratio Rank: 86
FJUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
FJUL Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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

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.

FJUL vs. DMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	FJUL	DMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.71	4.18	-1.48
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.93	7.19	-3.26
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.54	2.07	-0.53
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.80	10.08	-6.27
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	19.98	65.10	-45.12
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FJUL vs. DMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FJUL Sharpe Ratio is 2.71, which is lower than the DMAR Sharpe Ratio of 4.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FJUL and DMAR, 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

	FJUL	DMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.71	4.18	-1.48
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.05	1.12	-0.07
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.14	1.17	-0.03

Drawdowns

FJUL vs. DMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FJUL drawdown since its inception was -13.08%, which is greater than DMAR's maximum drawdown of -9.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FJUL and DMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	FJUL	DMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.08%	-9.84%	-3.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.10%	-1.53%	-3.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.08%	-9.16%	-3.92%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-13.08%	-9.84%	-3.24%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.01%	-0.04%	+0.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.88%	-1.85%	-0.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.97%	0.24%	+0.73%

Volatility

FJUL vs. DMAR - Volatility Comparison

FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July (FJUL) has a higher volatility of 0.79% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - March (DMAR) at 0.69%. This indicates that FJUL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FJUL	DMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.79%	0.69%	+0.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.13%	2.74%	+2.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.10%	3.64%	+3.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.95%	7.04%	+3.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.57%	6.97%	+3.60%

FJUL vs. DMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FJUL vs. DMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither FJUL nor DMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FJUL and DMAR in my portfolio?

FJUL and DMAR 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, FJUL or DMAR?

FJUL has higher volatility (0.79%) compared to DMAR (0.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FJUL dropped -13.08% vs DMAR's -9.84%.

Which ETF is better, FJUL or DMAR?

On 5-year performance, FJUL leads with 11.43% vs 7.83% for DMAR. Both ETFs have the same 0.85% expense ratio. On volatility, DMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FJUL or DMAR?

Over the 5-year period, FJUL has performed better with a 11.43% return vs 7.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FJUL or DMAR?

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

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

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.18 vs 2.71), 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.