JULB vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

JULB (Aptus July Buffer ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - JULB is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Aptus Capital Advisors, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. JULB charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

JULB vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Aptus July Buffer ETF (JULB) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JULB achieves a 6.35% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.06% return.

JULB

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 2.40%
• YTD: 6.35%
• 6M: 6.93%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 2.81%
• YTD: 13.06%
• 6M: 14.01%
• 1Y: 23.38%
• 3Y*: 16.73%
• 5Y*: 12.13%
• 10Y*: —

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

JULB vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
JULB Aptus July Buffer ETF	6.35%	2.56%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.06%	2.71%

Correlation

The correlation between JULB and QMAR 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 15, 2025	0.87

Return for Risk

JULB vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 96
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

JULB vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Aptus July Buffer ETF (JULB) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	JULB	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	3.86	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.17	0.91	+1.26

Drawdowns

JULB vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JULB drawdown since its inception was -5.24%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JULB and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	JULB	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.24%	-19.83%	+14.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-3.21%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.91%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.07%	-0.19%	+0.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.87%	-3.28%	+2.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.45%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	JULB	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	1.27%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	4.85%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.81%	6.09%	+0.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.81%	13.97%	-7.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.81%	13.85%	-7.04%

JULB vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

JULB has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

JULB vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither JULB nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JULB and QMAR in my portfolio?

JULB and QMAR 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 ETF is better, JULB or QMAR?

On fees, JULB is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, JULB or QMAR?

JULB is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, JULB or QMAR?

JULB and QMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between JULB and QMAR?

JULB is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Aptus Capital Advisors and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for JULB and 0.90% for QMAR.