QCJA vs. JULB

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

QCJA (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January) and JULB (Aptus July Buffer ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QCJA charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for JULB.

Performance

QCJA vs. JULB - 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 Aptus July Buffer ETF (JULB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCJA achieves a 4.92% return, which is significantly lower than JULB's 6.33% return.

QCJA

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: -0.40%
• YTD: 4.92%
• 6M: 5.00%
• 1Y: 12.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

JULB

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 0.56%
• YTD: 6.33%
• 6M: 5.83%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QCJA vs. JULB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QCJA FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January	4.92%	2.77%
JULB Aptus July Buffer ETF	6.33%	2.44%

Correlation

The correlation between QCJA and JULB is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2025	0.92

Return for Risk

QCJA vs. JULB — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCJA

QCJA Risk / Return Rank: 77
QCJA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
QCJA Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
QCJA Omega Ratio Rank: 85
QCJA Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
QCJA Martin Ratio Rank: 76

JULB

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. JULB - 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 Aptus July Buffer ETF (JULB). 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	JULB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.20	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.16	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.62	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.53	—	—

Drawdowns

QCJA vs. JULB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCJA drawdown since its inception was -10.67%, which is greater than JULB's maximum drawdown of -5.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCJA and JULB.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCJA	JULB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.67%	-5.24%	-5.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.98%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.05%	-0.48%	-0.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.17%	-0.83%	-0.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.04%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	QCJA	JULB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.05%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.97%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.95%	6.82%	-0.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.43%	6.82%	+2.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.43%	6.82%	+2.61%

QCJA vs. JULB - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCJA has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than JULB's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCJA vs. JULB - Dividend Comparison

Neither QCJA nor JULB has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCJA and JULB in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, QCJA and JULB move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, QCJA or JULB?

On fees, JULB is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCJA or JULB?

JULB is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCJA.

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

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

What is the main difference between QCJA and JULB?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Aptus Capital Advisors. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QCJA and 0.25% for JULB.