QCAP vs. APRW

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

QCAP (FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April) and APRW (AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QCAP is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by FT Vest, while APRW is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Allianz. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QCAP returned 10.86% vs 12.48% for APRW. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QCAP charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for APRW.

Performance

QCAP vs. APRW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April (QCAP) and AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCAP achieves a 5.00% return, which is significantly lower than APRW's 6.25% return.

QCAP

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.41%
• YTD: 5.00%
• 6M: 5.17%
• 1Y: 10.86%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

APRW

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 0.31%
• YTD: 6.25%
• 6M: 6.43%
• 1Y: 12.48%
• 3Y*: 9.95%
• 5Y*: 7.04%
• 10Y*: —

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

QCAP vs. APRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QCAP FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April	5.00%	7.13%	10.87%
APRW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF	6.25%	6.18%	11.21%

Correlation

The correlation between QCAP and APRW is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 22, 2024	0.86

The correlation between QCAP and APRW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QCAP vs. APRW — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCAP

QCAP Risk / Return Rank: 94
QCAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
QCAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
QCAP Omega Ratio Rank: 96
QCAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
QCAP Martin Ratio Rank: 97

APRW

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

QCAP vs. APRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April (QCAP) and AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW). 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.

	QCAP	APRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.12	4.66	-1.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.72	8.31	-3.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.80	2.18	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.19	14.03	-8.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	39.34	75.16	-35.83

QCAP vs. APRW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCAP Sharpe Ratio is 3.12, which is lower than the APRW Sharpe Ratio of 4.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCAP and APRW, 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

QCAP vs. APRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCAP drawdown since its inception was -9.17%, roughly equal to the maximum APRW drawdown of -9.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCAP and APRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCAP	APRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.17%	-9.61%	+0.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.10%	-0.89%	-1.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.61%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-9.61%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.30%	-0.16%	-0.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.53%	-1.11%	+0.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.28%	0.17%	+0.11%

Volatility

QCAP vs. APRW - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April (QCAP) has a higher volatility of 2.46% compared to AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW) at 1.09%. This indicates that QCAP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than APRW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCAP	APRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.46%	1.09%	+1.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.03%	2.10%	+0.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.50%	2.69%	+0.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.77%	6.73%	+2.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.77%	6.40%	+2.37%

QCAP vs. APRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCAP has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than APRW's 0.74% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCAP vs. APRW - Dividend Comparison

Neither QCAP nor APRW has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
APRW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	3.67%
QCAP FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCAP and APRW in my portfolio?

QCAP and APRW have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QCAP or APRW?

QCAP has higher volatility (2.46%) compared to APRW (1.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCAP dropped -9.17% vs APRW's -9.61%.

Which ETF is better, QCAP or APRW?

On 1-year performance, APRW leads with 12.48% vs 10.86% for QCAP. On fees, APRW is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, APRW has been the lower-risk option at 1.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCAP or APRW?

Over the 1-year period, APRW has performed better with a 12.48% return vs 10.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCAP or APRW?

APRW is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCAP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QCAP or APRW?

QCAP and APRW have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between QCAP and APRW?

QCAP is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while APRW is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Allianz. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QCAP and 0.74% for APRW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

APRW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.66 vs 3.12), 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.