OALC vs. FJUN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

OALC (OneAscent Large Cap Core ETF) and FJUN (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. OALC is actively managed, while FJUN is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, OALC returned 23.85%/yr vs 14.38%/yr for FJUN. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. OALC charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for FJUN.

Performance

OALC vs. FJUN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in OneAscent Large Cap Core ETF (OALC) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June (FJUN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, OALC achieves a 15.60% return, which is significantly higher than FJUN's 4.64% return.

OALC

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: 6.75%
• YTD: 15.60%
• 6M: 16.26%
• 1Y: 32.95%
• 3Y*: 23.85%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FJUN

• 1D: -0.18%
• 1M: 1.03%
• YTD: 4.64%
• 6M: 5.30%
• 1Y: 13.82%
• 3Y*: 14.38%
• 5Y*: 11.05%
• 10Y*: —

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

OALC vs. FJUN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
OALC OneAscent Large Cap Core ETF	15.60%	20.36%	19.64%	22.03%	-18.08%	-0.54%
FJUN FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June	4.64%	11.05%	16.38%	22.30%	-4.95%	0.74%

Correlation

The correlation between OALC and FJUN 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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 17, 2021	0.92

The correlation between OALC and FJUN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

OALC vs. FJUN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	OALC	FJUN
Technology	37.8%	36.2%
Financial Services	14.7%	11.9%
Consumer Cyclical	11.1%	10.1%
Communication Services	8.4%	10.9%
Industrials	7.6%	8.1%
Healthcare	6.4%	8.4%
Consumer Defensive	5.3%	4.9%
Utilities	3.0%	2.3%
Energy	2.5%	3.5%
Basic Materials	1.3%	1.8%
Real Estate	1.0%	1.9%

Return for Risk

OALC vs. FJUN — Risk / Return Rank

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

OALC

OALC Risk / Return Rank: 79
OALC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
OALC Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
OALC Omega Ratio Rank: 76
OALC Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
OALC Martin Ratio Rank: 86

FJUN

FJUN Risk / Return Rank: 77
FJUN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
FJUN Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
FJUN Omega Ratio Rank: 81
FJUN Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
FJUN Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

OALC vs. FJUN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for OneAscent Large Cap Core ETF (OALC) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June (FJUN). 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.

	OALC	FJUN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.56	2.28	+0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.49	3.44	+0.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.49	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.93	3.36	+0.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.19	18.98	-0.79
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

OALC vs. FJUN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current OALC Sharpe Ratio is 2.56, which is comparable to the FJUN Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of OALC and FJUN, 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

	OALC	FJUN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.56	2.28	+0.28
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.05	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.68	1.17	-0.49

Drawdowns

OALC vs. FJUN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum OALC drawdown since its inception was -26.82%, which is greater than FJUN's maximum drawdown of -13.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for OALC and FJUN.

Drawdown Indicators

	OALC	FJUN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.82%	-13.26%	-13.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.42%	-4.13%	-4.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.64%	-13.26%	-4.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-13.26%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.63%	-0.18%	-0.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.04%	-1.67%	-5.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.82%	0.73%	+1.09%

Volatility

OALC vs. FJUN - Volatility Comparison

OneAscent Large Cap Core ETF (OALC) has a higher volatility of 3.42% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June (FJUN) at 0.41%. This indicates that OALC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FJUN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	OALC	FJUN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.42%	0.41%	+3.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.95%	4.35%	+5.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.94%	6.11%	+6.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.28%	10.55%	+6.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.28%	10.27%	+7.01%

OALC vs. FJUN - Expense Ratio Comparison

OALC has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than FJUN's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

OALC vs. FJUN - Dividend Comparison

OALC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, while FJUN has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FJUN FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
OALC OneAscent Large Cap Core ETF	0.53%	0.61%	0.70%	0.40%	0.40%	0.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both OALC and FJUN in my portfolio?

OALC and FJUN 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, OALC or FJUN?

OALC has higher volatility (3.42%) compared to FJUN (0.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, OALC dropped -26.82% vs FJUN's -13.26%.

Which ETF is better, OALC or FJUN?

On 3-year performance, OALC leads with 23.85% vs 14.38% for FJUN. On fees, OALC is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, FJUN has been the lower-risk option at 0.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, OALC or FJUN?

Over the 3-year period, OALC has performed better with a 23.85% return vs 14.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, OALC or FJUN?

OALC is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for FJUN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, OALC or FJUN?

OALC has the higher dividend yield at 0.53%, compared with 0.00% for FJUN.

What is the main difference between OALC and FJUN?

They also come from different issuers: Oneascent and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for OALC and 0.85% for FJUN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

OALC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.56 vs 2.28), 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.