QCJA vs. CAOS

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

QCJA (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QCJA is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust, while CAOS is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QCJA returned 12.76% vs 2.02% for CAOS. At a correlation of -0.38, they often move in opposite directions. QCJA charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.

Performance

QCJA vs. CAOS - 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 Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCJA achieves a 5.98% return, which is significantly higher than CAOS's 0.84% return.

QCJA

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.06%
• 6M: 5.67%
• YTD: 5.98%
• 1Y: 12.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CAOS

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.12%
• 6M: 0.30%
• YTD: 0.84%
• 1Y: 2.02%
• 3Y*: 3.63%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QCJA vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QCJA FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January	5.98%	11.05%
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.84%	2.40%

Correlation

The correlation between QCJA and CAOS is -0.35, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 21, 2025	-0.38

Return for Risk

QCJA vs. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCJA

QCJA Risk / Return Rank: 79
QCJA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
QCJA Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
QCJA Omega Ratio Rank: 86
QCJA Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
QCJA Martin Ratio Rank: 80

CAOS

CAOS Risk / Return Rank: 53
CAOS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
CAOS Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
CAOS Omega Ratio Rank: 53
CAOS Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
CAOS Martin Ratio Rank: 45

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. CAOS - 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 Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). 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.

	QCJA	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.13	1.31	+0.82
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.05	2.09	+0.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.27	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.57	2.68	-0.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.23	6.06	+6.17

QCJA vs. CAOS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCJA Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is higher than the CAOS Sharpe Ratio of 1.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCJA and CAOS, 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

QCJA vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCJA drawdown since its inception was -10.67%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCJA and CAOS.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCJA	CAOS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.67%	-3.89%	-6.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.98%	-0.76%	-4.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-3.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-1.04%	+1.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.14%	-0.92%	-0.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.05%	0.33%	+0.72%

Volatility

QCJA vs. CAOS - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) has a higher volatility of 1.79% compared to Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) at 0.48%. This indicates that QCJA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAOS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCJA	CAOS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.79%	0.48%	+1.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.13%	1.09%	+4.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.02%	1.56%	+4.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.31%	4.20%	+5.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.31%	4.20%	+5.11%

QCJA vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCJA has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCJA vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison

Neither QCJA nor CAOS has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCJA and CAOS in my portfolio?

QCJA and CAOS have a correlation of -0.35, 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 CAOS?

QCJA has higher volatility (1.79%) compared to CAOS (0.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCJA dropped -10.67% vs CAOS's -3.89%.

Which ETF is better, QCJA or CAOS?

On 1-year performance, QCJA leads with 12.76% vs 2.02% for CAOS. On fees, CAOS is cheaper at 0.63% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCJA or CAOS?

Over the 1-year period, QCJA has performed better with a 12.76% return vs 2.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCJA or CAOS?

CAOS is cheaper with a 0.63% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCJA.

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

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

What is the main difference between QCJA and CAOS?

QCJA is categorized as Defined Outcome, while CAOS is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QCJA and 0.63% for CAOS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCJA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 1.31), 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.