PMAU vs. QCJA

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

PMAU (PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - August) and QCJA (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PMAU charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QCJA.

Performance

PMAU vs. QCJA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - August (PMAU) and FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PMAU achieves a 3.18% return, which is significantly lower than QCJA's 5.74% return.

PMAU

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.43%
• YTD: 3.18%
• 6M: 3.27%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QCJA

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.37%
• YTD: 5.74%
• 6M: 6.00%
• 1Y: 15.37%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PMAU vs. QCJA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
PMAU PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - August	3.18%	2.94%
QCJA FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January	5.74%	5.63%

Correlation

The correlation between PMAU and QCJA is 0.86, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2025	0.86

Return for Risk

PMAU vs. QCJA — Risk / Return Rank

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

PMAU

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

QCJA

QCJA Risk / Return Rank: 80
QCJA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
QCJA Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
QCJA Omega Ratio Rank: 88
QCJA Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
QCJA Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

PMAU vs. QCJA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - August (PMAU) and FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA). 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.

	PMAU	QCJA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.60	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.75	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.53	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	3.10	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	14.88	—

Drawdowns

PMAU vs. QCJA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PMAU drawdown since its inception was -1.79%, smaller than the maximum QCJA drawdown of -10.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PMAU and QCJA.

Drawdown Indicators

	PMAU	QCJA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.79%	-10.67%	+8.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-4.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.27%	+0.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.17%	-1.17%	+1.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.03%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	PMAU	QCJA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	1.92%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	4.93%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.48%	5.94%	-3.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.48%	9.43%	-6.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.48%	9.43%	-6.95%

PMAU vs. QCJA - Expense Ratio Comparison

PMAU has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than QCJA's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

PMAU vs. QCJA - Dividend Comparison

Neither PMAU nor QCJA has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PMAU and QCJA in my portfolio?

PMAU and QCJA have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, PMAU or QCJA?

On fees, PMAU is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, PMAU or QCJA?

PMAU is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCJA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PMAU or QCJA?

PMAU and QCJA have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between PMAU and QCJA?

They also come from different issuers: PGIM and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for PMAU and 0.90% for QCJA.