NJUL vs. QCJL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NJUL (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - July) and QCJL (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. NJUL is passively managed, while QCJL is actively managed. Over the past year, NJUL returned 18.75% vs 14.69% for QCJL. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NJUL charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QCJL.

Performance

NJUL vs. QCJL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - July (NJUL) and FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NJUL achieves a 6.16% return, which is significantly higher than QCJL's 5.15% return.

NJUL

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 1.39%
• YTD: 6.16%
• 6M: 6.40%
• 1Y: 18.75%
• 3Y*: 14.95%
• 5Y*: 10.86%
• 10Y*: —

QCJL

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 1.24%
• YTD: 5.15%
• 6M: 5.61%
• 1Y: 14.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NJUL vs. QCJL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NJUL Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - July	6.16%	15.67%	4.95%
QCJL FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July	5.15%	13.10%	4.12%

Correlation

The correlation between NJUL and QCJL is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2024	0.93

The correlation between NJUL and QCJL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NJUL vs. QCJL — Risk / Return Rank

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

NJUL

NJUL Risk / Return Rank: 80
NJUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
NJUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
NJUL Omega Ratio Rank: 81
NJUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
NJUL Martin Ratio Rank: 88

QCJL

QCJL Risk / Return Rank: 81
QCJL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
QCJL Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
QCJL Omega Ratio Rank: 84
QCJL Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
QCJL Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

NJUL vs. QCJL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - July (NJUL) and FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL). 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.

	NJUL	QCJL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.45	2.51	-0.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.56	3.67	-0.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.51	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.82	3.69	+0.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.60	18.73	+0.87
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NJUL vs. QCJL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NJUL Sharpe Ratio is 2.45, which is comparable to the QCJL Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NJUL and QCJL, 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

	NJUL	QCJL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.45	2.51	-0.06
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.01	1.29	-0.28

Drawdowns

NJUL vs. QCJL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NJUL drawdown since its inception was -14.37%, which is greater than QCJL's maximum drawdown of -11.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NJUL and QCJL.

Drawdown Indicators

	NJUL	QCJL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.37%	-11.18%	-3.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.93%	-4.00%	-0.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.58%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.06%	+0.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.31%	-1.07%	-1.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.96%	0.79%	+0.17%

Volatility

NJUL vs. QCJL - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - July (NJUL) and FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) have volatilities of 0.40% and 0.39%, 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

	NJUL	QCJL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.40%	0.39%	+0.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.33%	4.32%	+1.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.71%	5.89%	+1.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.56%	9.48%	+2.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.06%	9.48%	+1.58%

NJUL vs. QCJL - Expense Ratio Comparison

NJUL has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than QCJL's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

NJUL vs. QCJL - Dividend Comparison

Neither NJUL nor QCJL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NJUL and QCJL in my portfolio?

NJUL and QCJL have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NJUL or QCJL?

NJUL has higher volatility (0.40%) compared to QCJL (0.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NJUL dropped -14.37% vs QCJL's -11.18%.

Which ETF is better, NJUL or QCJL?

On 1-year performance, NJUL leads with 18.75% vs 14.69% for QCJL. On fees, NJUL is cheaper at 0.79% 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, NJUL or QCJL?

Over the 1-year period, NJUL has performed better with a 18.75% return vs 14.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NJUL or QCJL?

NJUL is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCJL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NJUL or QCJL?

NJUL and QCJL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between NJUL and QCJL?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for NJUL and 0.90% for QCJL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCJL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.51 vs 2.45), 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.