FLJJ vs. MSTQ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLJJ (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF) and MSTQ (LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FLJJ returned 15.29% vs 31.81% for MSTQ. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FLJJ charges 0.74%/yr vs 1.59%/yr for MSTQ.

Performance

FLJJ vs. MSTQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF (FLJJ) and LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF (MSTQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLJJ achieves a 4.98% return, which is significantly lower than MSTQ's 17.40% return.

FLJJ

• 1D: -0.00%
• 1M: 1.88%
• YTD: 4.98%
• 6M: 5.80%
• 1Y: 15.29%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MSTQ

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 9.02%
• YTD: 17.40%
• 6M: 15.69%
• 1Y: 31.81%
• 3Y*: 24.11%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLJJ vs. MSTQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLJJ Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF	4.98%	11.35%	14.19%
MSTQ LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF	17.40%	20.57%	16.08%

Correlation

The correlation between FLJJ and MSTQ is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2024	0.83

The correlation between FLJJ and MSTQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLJJ vs. MSTQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLJJ	MSTQ
Technology	36.2%	54.0%
Financial Services	11.9%	0.2%
Communication Services	10.9%	15.6%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	12.2%
Healthcare	8.4%	4.2%
Industrials	8.1%	2.9%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	7.6%
Energy	3.5%	0.6%
Utilities	2.3%	1.4%
Real Estate	1.9%	0.1%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.1%

Return for Risk

FLJJ vs. MSTQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLJJ

FLJJ Risk / Return Rank: 89
FLJJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
FLJJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
FLJJ Omega Ratio Rank: 93
FLJJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
FLJJ Martin Ratio Rank: 90

MSTQ

MSTQ Risk / Return Rank: 59
MSTQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
MSTQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
MSTQ Omega Ratio Rank: 64
MSTQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
MSTQ Martin Ratio Rank: 48

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.

FLJJ vs. MSTQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF (FLJJ) and LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF (MSTQ). 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.

	FLJJ	MSTQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.02	2.23	+0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.67	2.97	+1.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.65	1.39	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.98	2.58	+1.40
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.87	8.04	+12.82
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLJJ vs. MSTQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLJJ Sharpe Ratio is 3.02, which is higher than the MSTQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLJJ and MSTQ, 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

	FLJJ	MSTQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.02	2.23	+0.79
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.14	0.87	+1.26

Drawdowns

FLJJ vs. MSTQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLJJ drawdown since its inception was -6.91%, smaller than the maximum MSTQ drawdown of -31.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLJJ and MSTQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLJJ	MSTQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-6.91%	-31.05%	+24.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.86%	-12.39%	+8.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.22%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.05%	-0.21%	+0.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.78%	-8.62%	+7.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.73%	3.97%	-3.24%

Volatility

FLJJ vs. MSTQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF (FLJJ) is 0.86%, while LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF (MSTQ) has a volatility of 4.25%. This indicates that FLJJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MSTQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLJJ	MSTQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.86%	4.25%	-3.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.59%	10.58%	-6.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.10%	14.35%	-9.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.21%	18.85%	-12.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.21%	18.85%	-12.64%

FLJJ vs. MSTQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLJJ has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than MSTQ's 1.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLJJ vs. MSTQ - Dividend Comparison

FLJJ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MSTQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.90%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
FLJJ Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MSTQ LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF	11.90%	13.97%	3.72%	0.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLJJ and MSTQ in my portfolio?

FLJJ and MSTQ have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLJJ or MSTQ?

MSTQ has higher volatility (4.25%) compared to FLJJ (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLJJ dropped -6.91% vs MSTQ's -31.05%.

Which ETF is better, FLJJ or MSTQ?

On 1-year performance, MSTQ leads with 31.81% vs 15.29% for FLJJ. On fees, FLJJ is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, FLJJ has been the lower-risk option at 0.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLJJ or MSTQ?

Over the 1-year period, MSTQ has performed better with a 31.81% return vs 15.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLJJ or MSTQ?

FLJJ is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 1.59% for MSTQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLJJ or MSTQ?

MSTQ has the higher dividend yield at 11.90%, compared with 0.00% for FLJJ.

What is the main difference between FLJJ and MSTQ?

They also come from different issuers: Allianz and Little Harbor Advisors. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for FLJJ and 1.59% for MSTQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLJJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.02 vs 2.23), 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.