QCJA vs. APXM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QCJA (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January) and APXM (FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds from First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QCJA returned 15.75% vs 5.49% for APXM. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QCJA charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for APXM.

Performance

QCJA vs. APXM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCJA achieves a 5.92% return, which is significantly higher than APXM's 2.11% return.

QCJA

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 2.12%
• YTD: 5.92%
• 6M: 6.91%
• 1Y: 15.75%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

APXM

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.79%
• YTD: 2.11%
• 6M: 2.59%
• 1Y: 5.49%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QCJA vs. APXM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QCJA FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January	5.92%	19.80%
APXM FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April	2.11%	5.40%

Correlation

The correlation between QCJA and APXM is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 22, 2025	0.66

The correlation between QCJA and APXM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QCJA vs. APXM — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCJA

QCJA Risk / Return Rank: 81
QCJA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
QCJA Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
QCJA Omega Ratio Rank: 89
QCJA Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
QCJA Martin Ratio Rank: 80

APXM

APXM Risk / Return Rank: 99
APXM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
APXM Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
APXM Omega Ratio Rank: 99
APXM Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
APXM Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

QCJA vs. APXM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) and FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April (APXM). 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.

	QCJA	APXM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.74	5.47	-2.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.00	10.56	-6.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	2.60	-1.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.18	20.36	-17.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.46	110.99	-95.53
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QCJA vs. APXM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCJA Sharpe Ratio is 2.74, which is lower than the APXM Sharpe Ratio of 5.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCJA and APXM, 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

	QCJA	APXM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.74	5.47	-2.73
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.31	5.70	-4.39

Drawdowns

QCJA vs. APXM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCJA drawdown since its inception was -10.67%, which is greater than APXM's maximum drawdown of -0.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCJA and APXM.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCJA	APXM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.67%	-0.40%	-10.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.98%	-0.27%	-4.71%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.10%	-0.06%	-0.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.19%	-0.03%	-1.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.02%	0.05%	+0.97%

Volatility

QCJA vs. APXM - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) has a higher volatility of 0.83% compared to FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April (APXM) at 0.42%. This indicates that QCJA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than APXM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCJA	APXM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.83%	0.42%	+0.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.62%	0.78%	+3.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.78%	1.01%	+4.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.48%	1.20%	+8.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.48%	1.20%	+8.28%

QCJA vs. APXM - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCJA has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than APXM's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCJA vs. APXM - Dividend Comparison

Neither QCJA nor APXM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCJA and APXM in my portfolio?

QCJA and APXM have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QCJA or APXM?

QCJA has higher volatility (0.83%) compared to APXM (0.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCJA dropped -10.67% vs APXM's -0.40%.

Which ETF is better, QCJA or APXM?

On 1-year performance, QCJA leads with 15.75% vs 5.49% for APXM. On fees, APXM is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, APXM 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, QCJA or APXM?

Over the 1-year period, QCJA has performed better with a 15.75% return vs 5.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCJA or APXM?

APXM is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCJA.

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

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

What is the main difference between QCJA and APXM?

Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QCJA and 0.85% for APXM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

APXM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.47 vs 2.74), 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.