QMAG vs. JULB

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

QMAG (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - August) and JULB (Aptus July Buffer ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QMAG charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for JULB.

Performance

QMAG vs. JULB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - August (QMAG) and Aptus July Buffer ETF (JULB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with QMAG having a 5.86% return and JULB slightly lower at 5.70%.

QMAG

• 1D: -0.81%
• 1M: 0.50%
• YTD: 5.86%
• 6M: 5.92%
• 1Y: 15.85%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

JULB

• 1D: -0.77%
• 1M: 0.87%
• YTD: 5.70%
• 6M: 6.10%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QMAG vs. JULB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QMAG FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - August	5.86%	2.57%
JULB Aptus July Buffer ETF	5.70%	2.56%

Correlation

The correlation between QMAG and JULB is 0.94, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 15, 2025	0.94

Return for Risk

QMAG vs. JULB — Risk / Return Rank

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

QMAG

QMAG Risk / Return Rank: 74
QMAG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QMAG Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
QMAG Omega Ratio Rank: 77
QMAG Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
QMAG Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

QMAG vs. JULB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - August (QMAG) and Aptus July Buffer ETF (JULB). 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.

	QMAG	JULB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.21	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.14	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.04	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.35	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QMAG	JULB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.21	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.21	1.97	-0.76

Drawdowns

QMAG vs. JULB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QMAG drawdown since its inception was -12.44%, which is greater than JULB's maximum drawdown of -5.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMAG and JULB.

Drawdown Indicators

	QMAG	JULB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.44%	-5.24%	-7.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.23%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.85%	-0.77%	-0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.16%	-0.87%	-0.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.11%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	QMAG	JULB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.05%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.66%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.23%	6.85%	+0.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.89%	6.85%	+4.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.89%	6.85%	+4.04%

QMAG vs. JULB - Expense Ratio Comparison

QMAG has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than JULB's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

QMAG vs. JULB - Dividend Comparison

Neither QMAG nor JULB has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QMAG and JULB in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, QMAG and JULB move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, QMAG or JULB?

On fees, JULB is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, QMAG or JULB?

JULB is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QMAG or JULB?

QMAG and JULB have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between QMAG and JULB?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Aptus Capital Advisors. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QMAG and 0.25% for JULB.