QJUN vs. CAOS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

QJUN (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - June) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QJUN is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust, while CAOS is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, QJUN returned 12.56%/yr vs 3.48%/yr for CAOS. Their 0.07 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. QJUN charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.

Performance

QJUN vs. CAOS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - June (QJUN) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QJUN achieves a 1.89% return, which is significantly higher than CAOS's 0.76% return.

QJUN

• 1D: 0.50%
• 1M: -1.99%
• 6M: 1.06%
• YTD: 1.89%
• 1Y: 9.15%
• 3Y*: 12.56%
• 5Y*: 9.65%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.07%

CAOS

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: -0.01%
• 6M: 0.16%
• YTD: 0.76%
• 1Y: 1.73%
• 3Y*: 3.48%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.70%

*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)
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	$6.81M	$5.39M	$5.09M
QJUN FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - June	$1.05M	$2.21M	$2.27M

QJUN vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QJUN FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - June	1.89%	13.59%	16.36%	24.55%
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.76%	2.55%	5.33%	7.43%

Correlation

The correlation between QJUN and CAOS is -0.35, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.35
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	-0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2023	0.07

The correlation between QJUN and CAOS shifts across timeframes, from -0.35 (1 year) to 0.07 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

QJUN vs. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank

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

QJUN

QJUN Risk / Return Rank: 38
QJUN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
QJUN Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
QJUN Omega Ratio Rank: 36
QJUN Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
QJUN Martin Ratio Rank: 49

CAOS

CAOS Risk / Return Rank: 56
CAOS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
CAOS Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
CAOS Omega Ratio Rank: 54
CAOS Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
CAOS Martin Ratio Rank: 48

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.

QJUN vs. CAOS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - June (QJUN) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). 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.

	QJUN	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.87	1.19	-0.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.28	1.89	-0.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.24	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.19	2.47	-1.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.70	5.45	+0.26

QJUN vs. CAOS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QJUN Sharpe Ratio is 0.87, which is comparable to the CAOS Sharpe Ratio of 1.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QJUN and CAOS, 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

QJUN vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QJUN drawdown since its inception was -19.92%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QJUN and CAOS.

Drawdown Indicators

	QJUN	CAOS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.92%	-3.89%	-16.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.68%	-0.76%	-5.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.47%	-3.60%	-12.87%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.92%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.11%	-1.13%	-2.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.82%	-0.92%	-2.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.40%	0.34%	+1.06%

Volatility

QJUN vs. CAOS - Volatility Comparison

FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - June (QJUN) has a higher volatility of 4.70% compared to Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) at 0.51%. This indicates that QJUN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAOS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QJUN	CAOS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.70%	0.51%	+4.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.71%	1.07%	+6.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.20%	1.57%	+7.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.30%	4.18%	+10.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.18%	4.18%	+10.00%

QJUN vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison

QJUN has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

QJUN vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison

Neither QJUN nor CAOS has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QJUN and CAOS in my portfolio?

QJUN and CAOS have a correlation of -0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QJUN or CAOS?

QJUN has higher volatility (4.70%) compared to CAOS (0.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QJUN dropped -19.92% vs CAOS's -3.89%.

Which ETF is better, QJUN or CAOS?

On 3-year performance, QJUN leads with 12.56% vs 3.48% for CAOS. On fees, CAOS is cheaper at 0.63% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QJUN or CAOS?

Over the 3-year period, QJUN has performed better with a 12.56% return vs 3.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QJUN or CAOS?

CAOS is cheaper with a 0.63% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QJUN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QJUN or CAOS?

QJUN and CAOS have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between QJUN and CAOS?

QJUN is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while CAOS is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QJUN and 0.63% for CAOS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CAOS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.19 vs 0.87), 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.