JULP vs. QB

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

JULP (PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July) and QB (ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. JULP is actively managed, while QB is passively managed. Over the past year, JULP returned 12.88% vs 18.28% for QB. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. JULP charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for QB.

Performance

JULP vs. QB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July (JULP) and ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JULP achieves a 6.12% return, which is significantly lower than QB's 12.15% return.

JULP

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 0.67%
• 6M: 5.23%
• YTD: 6.12%
• 1Y: 12.88%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QB

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: 3.02%
• 6M: 10.85%
• YTD: 12.15%
• 1Y: 18.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

JULP vs. QB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
JULP PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July	6.12%	8.97%
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF	12.15%	6.10%

Correlation

The correlation between JULP and QB is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025	0.72

The correlation between JULP and QB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

JULP vs. QB — Risk / Return Rank

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

JULP

JULP Risk / Return Rank: 80
JULP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
JULP Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
JULP Omega Ratio Rank: 86
JULP Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
JULP Martin Ratio Rank: 90

QB

QB Risk / Return Rank: 94
QB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QB Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
QB Omega Ratio Rank: 95
QB Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
QB Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

JULP vs. QB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July (JULP) and ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	JULP	QB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.92	2.62	-0.70
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.78	3.81	-1.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.62	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.89	5.28	-2.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.81	25.48	-9.66

JULP vs. QB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JULP Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is comparable to the QB Sharpe Ratio of 2.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JULP and QB, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

JULP vs. QB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JULP drawdown since its inception was -12.36%, which is greater than QB's maximum drawdown of -3.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JULP and QB.

Drawdown Indicators

	JULP	QB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.36%	-3.47%	-8.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.47%	-3.47%	-1.00%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.36%	-0.31%	-0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.04%	-0.42%	-0.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.82%	0.72%	+0.10%

Volatility

JULP vs. QB - Volatility Comparison

PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July (JULP) and ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB) have volatilities of 3.13% and 3.05%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JULP	QB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.13%	3.05%	+0.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.66%	5.83%	-0.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.76%	7.03%	-0.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.76%	6.93%	+2.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.76%	6.93%	+2.83%

JULP vs. QB - Expense Ratio Comparison

JULP has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than QB's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

JULP vs. QB - Dividend Comparison

JULP has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.78%.

Position	TTM	2025
JULP PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July	0.00%	0.00%
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF	0.78%	0.48%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JULP and QB in my portfolio?

JULP and QB have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JULP or QB?

JULP has higher volatility (3.13%) compared to QB (3.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JULP dropped -12.36% vs QB's -3.47%.

Which ETF is better, JULP or QB?

On 1-year performance, QB leads with 18.28% vs 12.88% for JULP. On fees, JULP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JULP or QB?

Over the 1-year period, QB has performed better with a 18.28% return vs 12.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JULP or QB?

JULP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for QB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, JULP or QB?

QB has the higher dividend yield at 0.78%, compared with 0.00% for JULP.

What is the main difference between JULP and QB?

They also come from different issuers: PGIM and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for JULP and 0.58% for QB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.62 vs 1.92), 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.