KJUL vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

KJUL (Innovator Russell 2000 Power Buffer ETF - July) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - KJUL is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the iShares Russell 2000 ETF, while QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust. KJUL is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, KJUL returned 4.93%/yr vs 12.12%/yr for QMAR. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. KJUL charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

KJUL vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Russell 2000 Power Buffer ETF - July (KJUL) 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, KJUL achieves a 6.53% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 13.03% return.

KJUL

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.84%
• YTD: 6.53%
• 6M: 6.73%
• 1Y: 18.90%
• 3Y*: 11.07%
• 5Y*: 4.93%
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 2.51%
• YTD: 13.03%
• 6M: 13.97%
• 1Y: 23.15%
• 3Y*: 16.71%
• 5Y*: 12.12%
• 10Y*: —

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

KJUL vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
KJUL Innovator Russell 2000 Power Buffer ETF - July	6.53%	7.70%	8.69%	11.78%	-8.44%	0.18%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	13.03%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-16.56%	12.31%

Correlation

The correlation between KJUL and QMAR is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.59
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2021	0.66

The correlation between KJUL and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

KJUL vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KJUL	QMAR
Industrials	17.5%	2.8%
Technology	16.9%	54.2%
Healthcare	16.5%	4.2%
Financial Services	15.9%	0.2%
Consumer Cyclical	8.4%	12.2%
Real Estate	6.2%	0.1%
Energy	6.2%	0.6%
Basic Materials	4.8%	1.2%
Utilities	2.9%	1.4%
Communication Services	2.5%	15.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	7.6%

Return for Risk

KJUL vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

KJUL

KJUL Risk / Return Rank: 83
KJUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
KJUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
KJUL Omega Ratio Rank: 79
KJUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
KJUL Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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: 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.

KJUL vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Russell 2000 Power Buffer ETF - July (KJUL) 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.

	KJUL	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.38	3.82	-1.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.54	6.00	-2.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.92	-0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.54	7.24	-1.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.49	52.23	-31.73
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

KJUL vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KJUL Sharpe Ratio is 2.38, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KJUL and QMAR, 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

	KJUL	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.38	3.82	-1.45
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.40	0.87	-0.47
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.57	0.91	-0.34

Drawdowns

KJUL vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KJUL drawdown since its inception was -16.69%, smaller than the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KJUL and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	KJUL	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.69%	-19.83%	+3.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.42%	-3.21%	-0.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.45%	-15.91%	+1.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.69%	-19.83%	+3.14%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.10%	-0.21%	+0.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.00%	-3.28%	-0.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.92%	0.45%	+0.47%

Volatility

KJUL vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Russell 2000 Power Buffer ETF - July (KJUL) is 0.55%, while FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) has a volatility of 1.27%. This indicates that KJUL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KJUL	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.55%	1.27%	-0.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.77%	4.85%	-0.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.99%	6.08%	+1.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.31%	13.96%	-1.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.67%	13.85%	-2.18%

KJUL vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

KJUL has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

KJUL vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither KJUL nor QMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KJUL and QMAR in my portfolio?

KJUL and QMAR have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, KJUL or QMAR?

QMAR has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to KJUL (0.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KJUL dropped -16.69% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, KJUL or QMAR?

On 5-year performance, QMAR leads with 12.12% vs 4.93% for KJUL. On fees, KJUL is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, KJUL has been the lower-risk option at 0.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KJUL or QMAR?

Over the 5-year period, QMAR has performed better with a 12.12% return vs 4.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KJUL or QMAR?

KJUL is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between KJUL and QMAR?

KJUL is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QMAR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for KJUL and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.82 vs 2.38), 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.