JULT vs. GMAR

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

JULT (AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Jul ETF) and GMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, JULT returned 16.19%/yr vs 12.32%/yr for GMAR. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. JULT charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for GMAR.

Performance

JULT vs. GMAR - 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 FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR). 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 lower than GMAR's 8.06% return.

JULT

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

GMAR

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 1.44%
• YTD: 8.06%
• 6M: 8.91%
• 1Y: 15.27%
• 3Y*: 12.32%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

JULT vs. GMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
JULT AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Jul ETF	5.97%	13.73%	17.43%	18.39%
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March	8.06%	9.29%	12.14%	11.95%

Correlation

The correlation between JULT and GMAR 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2023	0.89

The correlation between JULT and GMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

JULT vs. GMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	JULT	GMAR
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. GMAR — 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

GMAR

GMAR Risk / Return Rank: 97
GMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
GMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
GMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 98
GMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
GMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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. GMAR - 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 FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR). 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	GMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.55	3.93	-1.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.72	6.58	-2.86
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	2.01	-0.49
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.52	8.55	-5.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.94	59.48	-40.55
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. GMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JULT Sharpe Ratio is 2.55, which is lower than the GMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JULT and GMAR, 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	GMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.55	3.93	-1.39
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	1.92	-0.76

Drawdowns

JULT vs. GMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JULT drawdown since its inception was -13.57%, which is greater than GMAR's maximum drawdown of -9.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JULT and GMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	JULT	GMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.57%	-9.11%	-4.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.22%	-1.79%	-3.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.57%	-9.11%	-4.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-13.57%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.77%	-0.54%	-1.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.97%	0.26%	+0.71%

Volatility

JULT vs. GMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Jul ETF (JULT) is 0.59%, while FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) has a volatility of 0.68%. This indicates that JULT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JULT	GMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.59%	0.68%	-0.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.25%	2.99%	+2.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.23%	3.90%	+3.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.00%	6.83%	+4.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.48%	6.83%	+3.65%

JULT vs. GMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

JULT has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than GMAR's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

JULT vs. GMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither JULT nor GMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March	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 GMAR in my portfolio?

JULT and GMAR 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 is riskier, JULT or GMAR?

GMAR has higher volatility (0.68%) compared to JULT (0.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JULT dropped -13.57% vs GMAR's -9.11%.

Which ETF is better, JULT or GMAR?

On 3-year performance, JULT leads with 16.19% vs 12.32% for GMAR. On fees, JULT is cheaper at 0.74% 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, JULT or GMAR?

Over the 3-year period, JULT has performed better with a 16.19% return vs 12.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JULT or GMAR?

JULT is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for GMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between JULT and GMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Allianz and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for JULT and 0.85% for GMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.93 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.