QCJL vs. QQQA

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

QCJL (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July) and QQQA (ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. QCJL is actively managed, while QQQA is passively managed. Over the past year, QCJL returned 12.57% vs 82.44% for QQQA. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QCJL charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for QQQA.

Performance

QCJL vs. QQQA - 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 ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF (QQQA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCJL achieves a 5.15% return, which is significantly lower than QQQA's 62.20% return.

QCJL

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 5.15%
• 6M: 4.85%
• 1Y: 12.57%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QQQA

• 1D: -1.25%
• 1M: 9.62%
• YTD: 62.20%
• 6M: 58.27%
• 1Y: 82.44%
• 3Y*: 32.99%
• 5Y*: 13.98%
• 10Y*: —

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

QCJL vs. QQQA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QCJL FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July	5.15%	13.10%	4.38%
QQQA ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF	62.20%	9.87%	5.36%

Correlation

The correlation between QCJL and QQQA is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 22, 2024	0.79

The correlation between QCJL and QQQA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QCJL vs. QQQA — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCJL

QCJL Risk / Return Rank: 82
QCJL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
QCJL Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
QCJL Omega Ratio Rank: 86
QCJL Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
QCJL Martin Ratio Rank: 87

QQQA

QQQA Risk / Return Rank: 88
QQQA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
QQQA Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
QQQA Omega Ratio Rank: 84
QQQA Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
QQQA Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

QCJL vs. QQQA - 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 ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF (QQQA). 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	QQQA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.26	2.74	-0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.28	3.21	+0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.45	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.15	5.70	-2.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.09	20.29	-4.20

QCJL vs. QQQA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCJL Sharpe Ratio is 2.26, which is comparable to the QQQA Sharpe Ratio of 2.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCJL and QQQA, 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. QQQA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCJL drawdown since its inception was -11.18%, smaller than the maximum QQQA drawdown of -38.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCJL and QQQA.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCJL	QQQA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.18%	-38.44%	+27.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.00%	-14.54%	+10.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-30.84%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-38.44%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.24%	-7.30%	+7.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.04%	-15.54%	+14.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.78%	4.08%	-3.30%

Volatility

QCJL vs. QQQA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) is 0.73%, while ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF (QQQA) has a volatility of 17.19%. This indicates that QCJL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCJL	QQQA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.73%	17.19%	-16.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.20%	26.69%	-22.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.63%	30.24%	-24.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.34%	26.72%	-17.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.34%	26.54%	-17.20%

QCJL vs. QQQA - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCJL has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQA's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCJL vs. QQQA - Dividend Comparison

QCJL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QQQA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QCJL FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QQQA ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF	0.06%	0.10%	0.09%	0.34%	0.28%	0.10%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCJL and QQQA in my portfolio?

QCJL and QQQA have a correlation of 0.73, 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 QQQA?

QQQA has higher volatility (17.19%) compared to QCJL (0.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCJL dropped -11.18% vs QQQA's -38.44%.

Which ETF is better, QCJL or QQQA?

On 1-year performance, QQQA leads with 82.44% vs 12.57% for QCJL. On fees, QQQA is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, QCJL has been the lower-risk option at 0.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCJL or QQQA?

Over the 1-year period, QQQA has performed better with a 82.44% return vs 12.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCJL or QQQA?

QQQA is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCJL.

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

QQQA has the higher dividend yield at 0.06%, compared with 0.00% for QCJL.

What is the main difference between QCJL and QQQA?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QCJL and 0.58% for QQQA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 vs 2.26), 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.