JULT vs. QCAP

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

JULT (AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Jul ETF) and QCAP (FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April) are both exchange-traded funds - JULT is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Allianz, while QCAP is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by FT Vest. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, JULT returned 14.13% vs 7.98% for QCAP. Their correlation of 0.84 means they have usually moved in the same direction. JULT charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QCAP.

Performance

JULT vs. QCAP - 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 Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April (QCAP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JULT achieves a 6.69% return, which is significantly higher than QCAP's 4.16% return.

JULT

• 1D: 0.48%
• 1M: 0.40%
• 6M: 5.80%
• YTD: 6.69%
• 1Y: 14.13%
• 3Y*: 14.12%
• 5Y*: 11.27%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.89%

QCAP

• 1D: 0.37%
• 1M: -0.24%
• 6M: 3.70%
• YTD: 4.16%
• 1Y: 7.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 9.82%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
JULT AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Jul ETF	$809.92K	$2.14M	$1.31M
QCAP FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April	$301.74K	$289.61K	$395.99K

JULT vs. QCAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
JULT AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Jul ETF	6.69%	13.73%	13.52%
QCAP FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April	4.16%	7.13%	10.87%

Correlation

The correlation between JULT and QCAP is 0.78, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 22, 2024	0.84

The correlation between JULT and QCAP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

JULT vs. QCAP — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

JULT

JULT Risk / Return Rank: 81
JULT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
JULT Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
JULT Omega Ratio Rank: 85
JULT Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
JULT Martin Ratio Rank: 88

QCAP

QCAP Risk / Return Rank: 85
QCAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
QCAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
QCAP Omega Ratio Rank: 90
QCAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
QCAP Martin Ratio Rank: 92

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

JULT vs. QCAP - 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 Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April (QCAP). 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.

	JULT	QCAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.86	1.85	+0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.70	2.70	+0.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.42	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.51	3.00	-0.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.26	16.28	-3.02

JULT vs. QCAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JULT Sharpe Ratio is 1.86, which is comparable to the QCAP Sharpe Ratio of 1.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JULT and QCAP, 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

JULT vs. QCAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JULT drawdown since its inception was -13.57%, which is greater than QCAP's maximum drawdown of -9.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JULT and QCAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	JULT	QCAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.57%	-9.17%	-4.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.22%	-2.58%	-2.64%
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	-0.46%	-1.10%	+0.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.74%	-0.55%	-1.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.99%	0.48%	+0.51%

Volatility

JULT vs. QCAP - Volatility Comparison

AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Jul ETF (JULT) has a higher volatility of 2.29% compared to FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April (QCAP) at 2.11%. This indicates that JULT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QCAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JULT	QCAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.29%	2.11%	+0.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.43%	3.88%	+1.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.04%	4.20%	+2.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.01%	8.71%	+2.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.39%	8.71%	+1.68%

JULT vs. QCAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

JULT has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than QCAP's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

JULT vs. QCAP - Dividend Comparison

Neither JULT nor QCAP has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
JULT AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Jul ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	3.86%
QCAP FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JULT and QCAP in my portfolio?

JULT and QCAP have a correlation of 0.78, 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 QCAP?

JULT has higher volatility (2.29%) compared to QCAP (2.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JULT dropped -13.57% vs QCAP's -9.17%.

Which ETF is better, JULT or QCAP?

On 1-year performance, JULT leads with 14.13% vs 7.98% for QCAP. On fees, JULT is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, QCAP has been the lower-risk option at 2.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JULT or QCAP?

Over the 1-year period, JULT has performed better with a 14.13% return vs 7.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JULT or QCAP?

JULT is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCAP.

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

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

What is the main difference between JULT and QCAP?

JULT is categorized as Options Trading, while QCAP is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Allianz and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for JULT and 0.90% for QCAP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JULT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.86 vs 1.85), 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.