QCJA vs. NFTY
QCJA (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January) and NFTY (First Trust India NIFTY 50 Equal Weight ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QCJA is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust, while NFTY is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the NIFTY 50 Equal Weight Index. QCJA is actively managed, while NFTY is passively managed. Over the past year, QCJA returned 15.75% vs -8.48% for NFTY. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QCJA charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for NFTY.
Performance
QCJA vs. NFTY - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QCJA achieves a 5.92% return, which is significantly higher than NFTY's -9.70% return.
QCJA
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- 2.12%
- YTD
- 5.92%
- 6M
- 6.91%
- 1Y
- 15.75%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
NFTY
- 1D
- -1.34%
- 1M
- -1.64%
- YTD
- -9.70%
- 6M
- -7.99%
- 1Y
- -8.48%
- 3Y*
- 5.72%
- 5Y*
- 4.62%
- 10Y*
- 8.13%
QCJA vs. NFTY - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
QCJA FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January | 5.92% | 10.69% |
NFTY First Trust India NIFTY 50 Equal Weight ETF | -9.70% | 7.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between QCJA and NFTY is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.40 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 22, 2025 | 0.36 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
QCJA vs. NFTY — Risk / Return Rank
QCJA
NFTY
QCJA vs. NFTY - 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 First Trust India NIFTY 50 Equal Weight ETF (NFTY). 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 | NFTY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +3.32 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +4.78 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.57 | 0.91 | +0.65 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.18 | -0.53 | +3.70 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 15.46 | -1.39 | +16.84 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| QCJA | NFTY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.74 | -0.58 | +3.32 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.27 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.39 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.31 | 0.28 | +1.03 |
Drawdowns
QCJA vs. NFTY - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QCJA drawdown since its inception was -10.67%, smaller than the maximum NFTY drawdown of -47.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCJA and NFTY.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QCJA | NFTY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -10.67% | -47.67% | +37.00% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.98% | -16.14% | +11.16% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -21.55% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -21.55% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -47.67% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.10% | -17.45% | +17.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.19% | -9.58% | +8.39% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.02% | 6.12% | -5.10% |
Volatility
QCJA vs. NFTY - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) is 0.83%, while First Trust India NIFTY 50 Equal Weight ETF (NFTY) has a volatility of 4.58%. This indicates that QCJA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NFTY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QCJA | NFTY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.83% | 4.58% | -3.75% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.62% | 12.57% | -7.95% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.78% | 14.72% | -8.94% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.48% | 17.39% | -7.91% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.48% | 20.72% | -11.24% |
QCJA vs. NFTY - Expense Ratio Comparison
QCJA has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than NFTY's 0.80% expense ratio.
Dividends
QCJA vs. NFTY - Dividend Comparison
QCJA has not paid dividends to shareholders, while NFTY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.96%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NFTY First Trust India NIFTY 50 Equal Weight ETF | 1.96% | 1.24% | 1.61% | 0.13% | 5.89% | 1.53% | 0.61% | 0.97% | 0.00% | 4.10% | 3.28% | 4.39% |
QCJA FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
QCJA and NFTY have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
NFTY has higher volatility (4.58%) compared to QCJA (0.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCJA dropped -10.67% vs NFTY's -47.67%.
On 1-year performance, QCJA leads with 15.75% vs -8.48% for NFTY. On fees, NFTY is cheaper at 0.80% per year. On volatility, QCJA has been the lower-risk option at 0.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, QCJA has performed better with a 15.75% return vs -8.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
NFTY is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCJA.
NFTY has the higher dividend yield at 1.96%, compared with 0.00% for QCJA.
QCJA is categorized as Defined Outcome, while NFTY is Asia Pacific Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QCJA and 0.80% for NFTY.
QCJA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 vs -0.58), 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.
Find the right allocation for QCJA and NFTY
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer