QMAG vs. JULB

Last updated Jul 11, 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 0.93 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

In the year-to-date period, QMAG achieves a 7.45% return, which is significantly lower than JULB's 8.30% return.

QMAG

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 0.97%
• 6M: 6.60%
• YTD: 7.45%
• 1Y: 13.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

JULB

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 2.01%
• 6M: 7.34%
• YTD: 8.30%
• 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	7.45%	2.14%
JULB Aptus July Buffer ETF	8.30%	2.44%

Correlation

The correlation between QMAG and JULB is 0.93, 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 14, 2025	0.93

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: 76
QMAG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
QMAG Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
QMAG Omega Ratio Rank: 79
QMAG Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
QMAG Martin Ratio Rank: 81

JULB

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

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.

	QMAG	JULB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.93	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.76	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.64	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.39	—	—

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	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.11%	-0.79%	-0.32%
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	1.43%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.64%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.15%	6.74%	+0.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.67%	6.74%	+3.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.67%	6.74%	+3.93%

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 0.93, 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.