QCJL vs. QNXT

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

QCJL (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July) and QNXT (iShares Nasdaq-100 ex Top 30 ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. QCJL is actively managed, while QNXT is passively managed. Over the past year, QCJL returned 12.59% vs 20.78% for QNXT. Their 0.78 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. QCJL charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for QNXT.

Performance

QCJL vs. QNXT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) and iShares Nasdaq-100 ex Top 30 ETF (QNXT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCJL achieves a 7.80% return, which is significantly lower than QNXT's 15.29% return.

QCJL

• 1D: 1.07%
• 1M: 2.07%
• 6M: 7.46%
• YTD: 7.80%
• 1Y: 12.59%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.58%

QNXT

• 1D: 2.67%
• 1M: 1.60%
• 6M: 16.04%
• YTD: 15.29%
• 1Y: 20.78%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.47%

*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)
QCJL FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July	$1.69M	$1.42M	$649.89K
QNXT iShares Nasdaq-100 ex Top 30 ETF	$138.84K	$110.06K	$235.38K

QCJL vs. QNXT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QCJL FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July	7.80%	13.10%	2.55%
QNXT iShares Nasdaq-100 ex Top 30 ETF	15.29%	14.97%	-2.58%

Correlation

The correlation between QCJL and QNXT is 0.76, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2024	0.78

The correlation between QCJL and QNXT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QCJL vs. QNXT — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCJL

QCJL Risk / Return Rank: 85
QCJL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
QCJL Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
QCJL Omega Ratio Rank: 88
QCJL Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
QCJL Martin Ratio Rank: 89

QNXT

QNXT Risk / Return Rank: 46
QNXT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
QNXT Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
QNXT Omega Ratio Rank: 42
QNXT Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
QNXT Martin Ratio Rank: 49

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.

QCJL vs. QNXT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) and iShares Nasdaq-100 ex Top 30 ETF (QNXT). 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.

	QCJL	QNXT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	1.30	+0.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.14	1.87	+1.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.23	+0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.16	2.05	+1.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.29	6.22	+9.07

QCJL vs. QNXT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCJL Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is higher than the QNXT Sharpe Ratio of 1.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCJL and QNXT, 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

QCJL vs. QNXT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCJL drawdown since its inception was -11.18%, smaller than the maximum QNXT drawdown of -22.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCJL and QNXT.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCJL	QNXT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.18%	-22.25%	+11.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.00%	-10.16%	+6.16%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.94%	+0.94%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.01%	-3.74%	+2.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.83%	3.35%	-2.52%

Volatility

QCJL vs. QNXT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) is 2.62%, while iShares Nasdaq-100 ex Top 30 ETF (QNXT) has a volatility of 4.51%. This indicates that QCJL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QNXT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCJL	QNXT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.62%	4.51%	-1.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.72%	12.24%	-7.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.00%	16.14%	-10.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.26%	19.61%	-10.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.26%	19.61%	-10.35%

QCJL vs. QNXT - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCJL has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than QNXT's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCJL vs. QNXT - Dividend Comparison

QCJL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QNXT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.66%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
QCJL FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QNXT iShares Nasdaq-100 ex Top 30 ETF	0.66%	0.64%	0.22%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCJL and QNXT in my portfolio?

QCJL and QNXT have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QCJL or QNXT?

QNXT has higher volatility (4.51%) compared to QCJL (2.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCJL dropped -11.18% vs QNXT's -22.25%.

Which ETF is better, QCJL or QNXT?

On 1-year performance, QNXT leads with 20.78% vs 12.59% for QCJL. On fees, QNXT is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, QCJL has been the lower-risk option at 2.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCJL or QNXT?

Over the 1-year period, QNXT has performed better with a 20.78% return vs 12.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCJL or QNXT?

QNXT is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCJL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QCJL or QNXT?

QNXT has the higher dividend yield at 0.66%, compared with 0.00% for QCJL.

What is the main difference between QCJL and QNXT?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QCJL and 0.20% for QNXT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCJL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs 1.30), 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.