JULT vs. FLJJ

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

JULT (AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Jul ETF) and FLJJ (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF) are both Options Trading funds from Allianz. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, JULT returned 18.33% vs 15.33% for FLJJ. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. Both charge a 0.74% expense ratio.

Performance

JULT vs. FLJJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Jul ETF (JULT) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF (FLJJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JULT achieves a 5.97% return, which is significantly higher than FLJJ's 5.01% return.

JULT

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: 1.61%
• YTD: 5.97%
• 6M: 6.70%
• 1Y: 18.33%
• 3Y*: 16.19%
• 5Y*: 11.37%
• 10Y*: —

FLJJ

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 1.60%
• YTD: 5.01%
• 6M: 5.83%
• 1Y: 15.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

JULT vs. FLJJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
JULT AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Jul ETF	5.97%	13.73%	15.12%
FLJJ Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF	5.01%	11.35%	14.19%

Correlation

The correlation between JULT and FLJJ is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2024	0.96

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

JULT vs. FLJJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	JULT	FLJJ
Technology	36.2%	36.2%
Financial Services	11.9%	11.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	10.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	8.4%
Industrials	8.1%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.9%
Energy	3.5%	3.5%
Utilities	2.3%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.8%

Return for Risk

JULT vs. FLJJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

JULT

JULT Risk / Return Rank: 82
JULT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
JULT Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
JULT Omega Ratio Rank: 87
JULT Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
JULT Martin Ratio Rank: 88

FLJJ

FLJJ Risk / Return Rank: 89
FLJJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
FLJJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
FLJJ Omega Ratio Rank: 94
FLJJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
FLJJ Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

JULT vs. FLJJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Jul ETF (JULT) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF (FLJJ). 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.

	JULT	FLJJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.55	3.03	-0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.72	4.68	-0.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.65	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.52	3.99	-0.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.94	20.94	-2.01
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

JULT vs. FLJJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JULT Sharpe Ratio is 2.55, which is comparable to the FLJJ Sharpe Ratio of 3.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JULT and FLJJ, 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

	JULT	FLJJ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.55	3.03	-0.48
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.04	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.16	2.14	-0.98

Drawdowns

JULT vs. FLJJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JULT drawdown since its inception was -13.57%, which is greater than FLJJ's maximum drawdown of -6.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JULT and FLJJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	JULT	FLJJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.57%	-6.91%	-6.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.22%	-3.86%	-1.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.57%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-13.57%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.01%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.77%	-0.78%	-0.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.97%	0.73%	+0.24%

Volatility

JULT vs. FLJJ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Jul ETF (JULT) is 0.59%, while Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF (FLJJ) has a volatility of 0.83%. This indicates that JULT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLJJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JULT	FLJJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.59%	0.83%	-0.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.25%	3.58%	+1.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.23%	5.08%	+2.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.00%	6.20%	+4.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.48%	6.20%	+4.28%

JULT vs. FLJJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both JULT and FLJJ have an expense ratio of 0.74%.

Dividends

JULT vs. FLJJ - Dividend Comparison

Neither JULT nor FLJJ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FLJJ Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
JULT AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Jul ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	3.86%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JULT and FLJJ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, JULT and FLJJ 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.

Which is riskier, JULT or FLJJ?

FLJJ has higher volatility (0.83%) compared to JULT (0.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JULT dropped -13.57% vs FLJJ's -6.91%.

Which ETF is better, JULT or FLJJ?

On 1-year performance, JULT leads with 18.33% vs 15.33% for FLJJ. Both ETFs have the same 0.74% expense ratio. On volatility, JULT has been the lower-risk option at 0.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JULT or FLJJ?

Over the 1-year period, JULT has performed better with a 18.33% return vs 15.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JULT or FLJJ?

JULT and FLJJ have the same expense ratio: 0.74% per year.

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

JULT and FLJJ have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLJJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.03 vs 2.55), 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.