FJUL vs. QFLR

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FJUL (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July) and QFLR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FJUL is a Options Trading fund tracking the Cboe S&P 500 Buffer Protect Index July, while QFLR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Innovator. FJUL is passively managed, while QFLR is actively managed. Over the past year, FJUL returned 18.52% vs 26.58% for QFLR. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FJUL charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for QFLR.

Performance

FJUL vs. QFLR - 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 Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FJUL achieves a 5.95% return, which is significantly lower than QFLR's 6.83% return.

FJUL

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 1.72%
• YTD: 5.95%
• 6M: 6.62%
• 1Y: 18.52%
• 3Y*: 16.57%
• 5Y*: 11.43%
• 10Y*: —

QFLR

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 3.24%
• YTD: 6.83%
• 6M: 5.81%
• 1Y: 26.58%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FJUL vs. QFLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FJUL FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July	5.95%	14.19%	15.33%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	6.83%	17.27%	16.64%

Correlation

The correlation between FJUL and QFLR is 0.84, 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	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 26, 2024	0.84

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

FJUL vs. QFLR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FJUL	QFLR
Technology	36.2%	50.8%
Financial Services	11.9%	0.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	18.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	12.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	3.2%
Industrials	8.1%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	9.2%
Energy	3.5%	1.1%
Utilities	2.3%	1.5%
Real Estate	1.9%	-
Basic Materials	1.8%	0.0%

Return for Risk

FJUL vs. QFLR — 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: 86
FJUL Omega Ratio Rank: 87
FJUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
FJUL Martin Ratio Rank: 88

QFLR

QFLR Risk / Return Rank: 74
QFLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QFLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
QFLR Omega Ratio Rank: 75
QFLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
QFLR Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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. QFLR - 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 Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). 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	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.63	2.37	+0.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.81	3.22	+0.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.44	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.65	3.51	+0.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.15	14.97	+4.18
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. QFLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FJUL Sharpe Ratio is 2.63, which is comparable to the QFLR Sharpe Ratio of 2.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FJUL and QFLR, 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	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.63	2.37	+0.26
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.05	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.14	1.39	-0.26

Drawdowns

FJUL vs. QFLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FJUL drawdown since its inception was -13.08%, smaller than the maximum QFLR drawdown of -13.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FJUL and QFLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	FJUL	QFLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.08%	-13.97%	+0.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.10%	-7.61%	+2.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.08%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-13.08%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.54%	+0.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.87%	-2.49%	+0.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.97%	1.78%	-0.81%

Volatility

FJUL vs. QFLR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July (FJUL) is 0.69%, while Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) has a volatility of 2.50%. This indicates that FJUL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QFLR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FJUL	QFLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.69%	2.50%	-1.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.12%	8.04%	-2.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.08%	11.27%	-4.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.95%	12.61%	-1.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.56%	12.61%	-2.05%

FJUL vs. QFLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

FJUL has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than QFLR's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

FJUL vs. QFLR - Dividend Comparison

Neither FJUL nor QFLR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FJUL FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - July	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	0.00%	0.02%	0.03%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FJUL and QFLR in my portfolio?

FJUL and QFLR have a correlation of 0.84, 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 QFLR?

QFLR has higher volatility (2.50%) compared to FJUL (0.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FJUL dropped -13.08% vs QFLR's -13.97%.

Which ETF is better, FJUL or QFLR?

On 1-year performance, QFLR leads with 26.58% vs 18.52% for FJUL. On fees, FJUL is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, FJUL 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 QFLR?

Over the 1-year period, QFLR has performed better with a 26.58% return vs 18.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FJUL or QFLR?

FJUL is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for QFLR.

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

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

What is the main difference between FJUL and QFLR?

FJUL is categorized as Options Trading, while QFLR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for FJUL and 0.89% for QFLR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FJUL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.63 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.