QCJA vs. PMAU

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

QCJA (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January) and PMAU (PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - August) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QCJA returned 12.63% vs 7.16% for PMAU. Their correlation of 0.81 means they have usually moved in the same direction. QCJA charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PMAU.

Performance

QCJA vs. PMAU - 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 PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - August (PMAU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCJA achieves a 5.87% return, which is significantly higher than PMAU's 4.06% return.

QCJA

• 1D: 0.43%
• 1M: 0.60%
• 6M: 4.94%
• YTD: 5.87%
• 1Y: 12.63%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.16%

PMAU

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 0.64%
• 6M: 3.47%
• YTD: 4.06%
• 1Y: 7.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.08%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
PMAU PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - August	$189.00K	$90.12K	$31.57K
QCJA FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January	$112.35K	$94.37K	$197.51K

QCJA vs. PMAU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QCJA FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January	5.87%	5.63%
PMAU PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - August	4.06%	2.94%

Correlation

The correlation between QCJA and PMAU is 0.81, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2025	0.81

The correlation between QCJA and PMAU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QCJA vs. PMAU — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

QCJA

QCJA Risk / Return Rank: 80
QCJA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
QCJA Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
QCJA Omega Ratio Rank: 86
QCJA Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
QCJA Martin Ratio Rank: 81

PMAU

PMAU Risk / Return Rank: 95
PMAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
PMAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
PMAU Omega Ratio Rank: 97
PMAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
PMAU Martin Ratio Rank: 95

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QCJA vs. PMAU - 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 PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - August (PMAU). 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	PMAU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.07	3.06	-0.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.00	4.89	-1.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.71	-0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.55	4.03	-1.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.91	23.04	-11.13

QCJA vs. PMAU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCJA Sharpe Ratio is 2.07, which is lower than the PMAU Sharpe Ratio of 3.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCJA and PMAU, 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. PMAU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCJA drawdown since its inception was -10.67%, which is greater than PMAU's maximum drawdown of -1.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCJA and PMAU.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCJA	PMAU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.67%	-1.79%	-8.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.98%	-1.79%	-3.19%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.15%	0.00%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.13%	-0.15%	-0.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.06%	0.31%	+0.75%

Volatility

QCJA vs. PMAU - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) has a higher volatility of 1.86% compared to PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - August (PMAU) at 0.22%. This indicates that QCJA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PMAU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCJA	PMAU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.86%	0.22%	+1.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.16%	1.78%	+3.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.14%	2.35%	+3.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.23%	2.35%	+6.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.23%	2.35%	+6.88%

QCJA vs. PMAU - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCJA has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than PMAU's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCJA vs. PMAU - Dividend Comparison

Neither QCJA nor PMAU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCJA and PMAU in my portfolio?

QCJA and PMAU have a correlation of 0.81, 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 PMAU?

QCJA has higher volatility (1.86%) compared to PMAU (0.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCJA dropped -10.67% vs PMAU's -1.79%.

Which ETF is better, QCJA or PMAU?

On 1-year performance, QCJA leads with 12.63% vs 7.16% for PMAU. On fees, PMAU is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PMAU has been the lower-risk option at 0.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCJA or PMAU?

Over the 1-year period, QCJA has performed better with a 12.63% return vs 7.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCJA or PMAU?

PMAU is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCJA.

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

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

What is the main difference between QCJA and PMAU?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QCJA and 0.50% for PMAU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PMAU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.06 vs 2.07), 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.