QBSF vs. LJUL

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

QBSF (AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF) and LJUL (Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QBSF returned 7.73% vs 5.45% for LJUL. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QBSF charges 0.64%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for LJUL.

Performance

QBSF vs. LJUL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF (QBSF) and Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July (LJUL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QBSF achieves a 3.09% return, which is significantly higher than LJUL's 2.31% return.

QBSF

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 0.49%
• 6M: 2.66%
• YTD: 3.09%
• 1Y: 7.73%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LJUL

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.33%
• 6M: 2.10%
• YTD: 2.31%
• 1Y: 5.45%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QBSF vs. LJUL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QBSF AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF	3.09%	4.79%
LJUL Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July	2.31%	3.40%

Correlation

The correlation between QBSF and LJUL is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2025	0.64

The correlation between QBSF and LJUL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QBSF vs. LJUL — Risk / Return Rank

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

QBSF

QBSF Risk / Return Rank: 94
QBSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
QBSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
QBSF Omega Ratio Rank: 95
QBSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
QBSF Martin Ratio Rank: 93

LJUL

LJUL Risk / Return Rank: 98
LJUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
LJUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
LJUL Omega Ratio Rank: 97
LJUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
LJUL 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.

QBSF vs. LJUL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF (QBSF) and Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July (LJUL). 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.

	QBSF	LJUL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.88	3.52	-0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.43	5.88	-1.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.63	1.88	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.90	10.45	-5.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.78	53.25	-34.47

QBSF vs. LJUL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QBSF Sharpe Ratio is 2.88, which is comparable to the LJUL Sharpe Ratio of 3.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QBSF and LJUL, 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

QBSF vs. LJUL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QBSF drawdown since its inception was -1.58%, smaller than the maximum LJUL drawdown of -4.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QBSF and LJUL.

Drawdown Indicators

	QBSF	LJUL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.58%	-4.85%	+3.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.58%	-0.52%	-1.06%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.11%	-0.06%	-0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.20%	-0.67%	+0.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.41%	0.10%	+0.31%

Volatility

QBSF vs. LJUL - Volatility Comparison

AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF (QBSF) has a higher volatility of 0.69% compared to Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July (LJUL) at 0.42%. This indicates that QBSF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LJUL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QBSF	LJUL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.69%	0.42%	+0.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.91%	1.10%	+0.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.70%	1.57%	+1.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.67%	4.24%	-1.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.67%	4.24%	-1.57%

QBSF vs. LJUL - Expense Ratio Comparison

QBSF has a 0.64% expense ratio, which is lower than LJUL's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

QBSF vs. LJUL - Dividend Comparison

QBSF has not paid dividends to shareholders, while LJUL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.20%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
LJUL Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July	5.20%	5.36%	2.78%
QBSF AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QBSF and LJUL in my portfolio?

QBSF and LJUL have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QBSF or LJUL?

QBSF has higher volatility (0.69%) compared to LJUL (0.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QBSF dropped -1.58% vs LJUL's -4.85%.

Which ETF is better, QBSF or LJUL?

On 1-year performance, QBSF leads with 7.73% vs 5.45% for LJUL. On fees, QBSF is cheaper at 0.64% per year. On volatility, LJUL has been the lower-risk option at 0.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QBSF or LJUL?

Over the 1-year period, QBSF has performed better with a 7.73% return vs 5.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QBSF or LJUL?

QBSF is cheaper with a 0.64% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for LJUL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QBSF or LJUL?

LJUL has the higher dividend yield at 5.20%, compared with 0.00% for QBSF.

What is the main difference between QBSF and LJUL?

They also come from different issuers: AllianzIM and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.64% for QBSF and 0.79% for LJUL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LJUL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.52 vs 2.88), 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.