QCJA vs. PQAP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QCJA (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January) and PQAP (PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QCJA returned 15.75% vs 21.47% for PQAP. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QCJA charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PQAP.

Performance

QCJA vs. PQAP - 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 Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - April (PQAP). 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 lower than PQAP's 12.09% return.

QCJA

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

PQAP

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 2.44%
• YTD: 12.09%
• 6M: 13.01%
• 1Y: 21.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QCJA vs. PQAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QCJA FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January	5.92%	10.69%
PQAP PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - April	12.09%	12.95%

Correlation

The correlation between QCJA and PQAP is 0.86, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 22, 2025	0.88

The correlation between QCJA and PQAP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QCJA vs. PQAP — 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

PQAP

PQAP Risk / Return Rank: 98
PQAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
PQAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
PQAP Omega Ratio Rank: 98
PQAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
PQAP Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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. PQAP - 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 Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - April (PQAP). 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	PQAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.74	4.86	-2.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.00	8.47	-4.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	2.20	-0.63
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.18	15.50	-12.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.46	86.25	-70.79
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. PQAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCJA Sharpe Ratio is 2.74, which is lower than the PQAP Sharpe Ratio of 4.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCJA and PQAP, 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	PQAP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.74	4.86	-2.11
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.31	1.76	-0.45

Drawdowns

QCJA vs. PQAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCJA drawdown since its inception was -10.67%, roughly equal to the maximum PQAP drawdown of -10.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCJA and PQAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCJA	PQAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.67%	-10.79%	+0.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.98%	-1.39%	-3.59%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.10%	-0.12%	+0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.19%	-0.60%	-0.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.02%	0.25%	+0.77%

Volatility

QCJA vs. PQAP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) is 0.83%, while PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - April (PQAP) has a volatility of 1.02%. This indicates that QCJA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PQAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCJA	PQAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.83%	1.02%	-0.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.62%	3.09%	+1.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.78%	4.45%	+1.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.48%	11.03%	-1.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.48%	11.03%	-1.55%

QCJA vs. PQAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

QCJA vs. PQAP - Dividend Comparison

QCJA has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PQAP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.02%.

Position	TTM	2025
PQAP PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - April	0.02%	0.02%
QCJA FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCJA and PQAP in my portfolio?

QCJA and PQAP have a correlation of 0.86, 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 PQAP?

PQAP has higher volatility (1.02%) compared to QCJA (0.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCJA dropped -10.67% vs PQAP's -10.79%.

Which ETF is better, QCJA or PQAP?

On 1-year performance, PQAP leads with 21.47% vs 15.75% for QCJA. On fees, PQAP is cheaper at 0.50% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, QCJA or PQAP?

Over the 1-year period, PQAP has performed better with a 21.47% return vs 15.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCJA or PQAP?

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

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

PQAP has the higher dividend yield at 0.02%, compared with 0.00% for QCJA.

What is the main difference between QCJA and PQAP?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PQAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.86 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.