PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FJUN vs. IWB
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FJUN vs. IWB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June (FJUN) and iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FJUN achieves a 4.64% return, which is significantly lower than IWB's 10.54% return.


FJUN

1D
-0.18%
1M
1.03%
YTD
4.64%
6M
5.30%
1Y
13.82%
3Y*
14.38%
5Y*
11.05%
10Y*

IWB

1D
-0.71%
1M
4.95%
YTD
10.54%
6M
10.51%
1Y
27.03%
3Y*
22.02%
5Y*
12.99%
10Y*
15.17%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FJUN vs. IWB - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
FJUN
FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June
4.64%11.05%16.38%22.30%-4.95%11.47%11.67%
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
10.54%17.18%24.32%26.39%-19.19%26.32%23.56%

Correlation

The correlation between FJUN and IWB 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 (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.95

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.96

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2020

0.95

The correlation between FJUN and IWB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

FJUN vs. IWB - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FJUN
IWB

Technology

36.2%
36.6%

Financial Services

11.9%
11.3%

Communication Services

10.9%
10.4%

Consumer Cyclical

10.1%
10.0%

Healthcare

8.4%
8.6%

Industrials

8.1%
8.6%

Consumer Defensive

4.9%
4.5%

Energy

3.5%
3.3%

Utilities

2.3%
2.5%

Real Estate

1.9%
2.1%

Basic Materials

1.8%
1.9%

Technology

FJUN
36.2%
IWB
36.6%

Financial Services

FJUN
11.9%
IWB
11.3%

Communication Services

FJUN
10.9%
IWB
10.4%

Consumer Cyclical

FJUN
10.1%
IWB
10.0%

Healthcare

FJUN
8.4%
IWB
8.6%

Industrials

FJUN
8.1%
IWB
8.6%

Consumer Defensive

FJUN
4.9%
IWB
4.5%

Energy

FJUN
3.5%
IWB
3.3%

Utilities

FJUN
2.3%
IWB
2.5%

Real Estate

FJUN
1.9%
IWB
2.1%

Basic Materials

FJUN
1.8%
IWB
1.9%

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

FJUN vs. IWB — Risk / Return Rank

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

FJUN
FJUN Risk / Return Rank: 7777
Overall Rank
FJUN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FJUN Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
FJUN Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
FJUN Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
FJUN Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
Martin Ratio Rank

IWB
IWB Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
IWB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWB Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWB Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
IWB Calmar Ratio Rank: 6161
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWB Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
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.

FJUN vs. IWB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June (FJUN) and iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB). 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.


FJUNIWBDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.32

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.49

1.41

+0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.36

3.06

+0.29

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

18.98

14.09

+4.89

FJUN vs. IWB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FJUN Sharpe Ratio is 2.28, which is comparable to the IWB Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FJUN and IWB, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FJUNIWBDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.28

2.28

+0.01

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.05

0.76

+0.29

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.84

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.17

0.45

+0.72

Drawdowns

FJUN vs. IWB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FJUN drawdown since its inception was -13.26%, smaller than the maximum IWB drawdown of -55.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FJUN and IWB.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FJUNIWBDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-13.26%

-55.38%

+42.12%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.13%

-8.86%

+4.73%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.26%

-19.09%

+5.83%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-13.26%

-25.20%

+11.94%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.60%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.18%

-0.71%

+0.53%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.67%

-10.86%

+9.19%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.73%

1.92%

-1.19%

Volatility

FJUN vs. IWB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June (FJUN) is 0.41%, while iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) has a volatility of 2.88%. This indicates that FJUN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FJUNIWBDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.41%

2.88%

-2.47%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.35%

8.97%

-4.62%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

6.11%

11.93%

-5.82%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

10.55%

17.10%

-6.55%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.27%

18.14%

-7.87%

FJUN vs. IWB - Expense Ratio Comparison

FJUN has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than IWB's 0.15% expense ratio.


Dividends

FJUN vs. IWB - Dividend Comparison

FJUN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IWB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.91%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FJUN
FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
0.91%1.00%1.14%1.31%1.56%1.09%1.37%1.71%2.06%1.64%1.89%1.95%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.93, FJUN and IWB 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.

IWB has higher volatility (2.88%) compared to FJUN (0.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FJUN dropped -13.26% vs IWB's -55.38%.

On 5-year performance, IWB leads with 12.99% vs 11.05% for FJUN. On fees, IWB is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FJUN has been the lower-risk option at 0.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, IWB has performed better with a 12.99% return vs 11.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IWB is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for FJUN.

IWB has the higher dividend yield at 0.91%, compared with 0.00% for FJUN.

FJUN tracks Cboe S&P 500 Buffer Protect Index June, while IWB tracks Russell 1000 Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for FJUN and 0.15% for IWB.

FJUN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 2.28), 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 FJUN and IWB

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