QCAP vs. QCJL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QCAP (FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April) and QCJL (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QCAP returned 11.06% vs 14.69% for QCJL. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.90% expense ratio.

Performance

QCAP vs. QCJL - 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 FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with QCAP having a 5.23% return and QCJL slightly lower at 5.15%.

QCAP

• 1D: -0.08%
• 1M: 2.34%
• YTD: 5.23%
• 6M: 5.92%
• 1Y: 11.06%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

QCAP vs. QCJL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QCAP FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April	5.23%	7.13%	4.29%
QCJL FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July	5.15%	13.10%	4.12%

Correlation

The correlation between QCAP and QCJL is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2024	0.85

The correlation between QCAP and QCJL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QCAP vs. QCJL — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCAP

QCAP Risk / Return Rank: 97
QCAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
QCAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
QCAP Omega Ratio Rank: 98
QCAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
QCAP Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

QCAP vs. QCJL - 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 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.

	QCAP	QCJL	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	4.17	2.51	+1.66
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	7.37	3.67	+3.70
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.99	1.51	+0.48
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	13.50	3.69	+9.81
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	67.84	18.73	+49.11
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QCAP vs. QCJL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCAP Sharpe Ratio is 4.17, which is higher than the QCJL Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCAP 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

	QCAP	QCJL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.17	2.51	+1.66
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.26	1.29	-0.03

Drawdowns

QCAP vs. QCJL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCAP drawdown since its inception was -9.17%, smaller than the maximum QCJL drawdown of -11.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCAP and QCJL.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCAP	QCJL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.17%	-11.18%	+2.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.82%	-4.00%	+3.18%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.08%	-0.06%	-0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.52%	-1.07%	+0.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.16%	0.79%	-0.63%

Volatility

QCAP vs. QCJL - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest NASDAQ-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - April (QCAP) has a higher volatility of 0.99% compared to FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) at 0.39%. This indicates that QCAP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QCJL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCAP	QCJL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.99%	0.39%	+0.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.93%	4.32%	-2.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.69%	5.89%	-3.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.73%	9.48%	-0.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.73%	9.48%	-0.75%

QCAP vs. QCJL - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both QCAP and QCJL have an expense ratio of 0.90%.

Dividends

QCAP vs. QCJL - Dividend Comparison

Neither QCAP nor QCJL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCAP and QCJL in my portfolio?

QCAP and QCJL have a correlation of 0.75, 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 QCJL?

QCAP has higher volatility (0.99%) compared to QCJL (0.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCAP dropped -9.17% vs QCJL's -11.18%.

Which ETF is better, QCAP or QCJL?

On 1-year performance, QCJL leads with 14.69% vs 11.06% for QCAP. Both ETFs have the same 0.90% expense ratio. On volatility, QCJL has been the lower-risk option at 0.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCAP or QCJL?

Over the 1-year period, QCJL has performed better with a 14.69% return vs 11.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCAP or QCJL?

QCAP and QCJL have the same expense ratio: 0.90% per year.

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

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

What is the main difference between QCAP and QCJL?

They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and First Trust.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.17 vs 2.51), 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.