QMFE vs. LJUL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QMFE (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - February) and LJUL (Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July) are both Defined Outcome funds. QMFE is passively managed, while LJUL is actively managed. Over the past year, QMFE returned 20.18% vs 5.49% for LJUL. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QMFE charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for LJUL.

Performance

QMFE vs. LJUL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - February (QMFE) and Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July (LJUL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QMFE achieves a 9.21% return, which is significantly higher than LJUL's 1.80% return.

QMFE

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 2.40%
• YTD: 9.21%
• 6M: 9.98%
• 1Y: 20.18%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LJUL

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 0.31%
• YTD: 1.80%
• 6M: 2.30%
• 1Y: 5.49%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QMFE vs. LJUL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QMFE FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - February	9.21%	11.58%
LJUL Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July	1.80%	5.01%

Correlation

The correlation between QMFE and LJUL is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2025	0.71

The correlation between QMFE and LJUL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QMFE vs. LJUL — Risk / Return Rank

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

QMFE

QMFE Risk / Return Rank: 89
QMFE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
QMFE Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
QMFE Omega Ratio Rank: 92
QMFE Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
QMFE Martin Ratio Rank: 93

LJUL

LJUL Risk / Return Rank: 96
LJUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
LJUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
LJUL Omega Ratio Rank: 97
LJUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
LJUL Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

QMFE vs. LJUL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - February (QMFE) and Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July (LJUL). 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.

	QMFE	LJUL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.94	3.48	-0.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.31	5.70	-1.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.61	1.86	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.21	10.51	-6.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	24.22	53.01	-28.79
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QMFE vs. LJUL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QMFE Sharpe Ratio is 2.94, which is comparable to the LJUL Sharpe Ratio of 3.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QMFE and LJUL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QMFE	LJUL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.94	3.48	-0.54
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.44	1.78	-0.34

Drawdowns

QMFE vs. LJUL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QMFE drawdown since its inception was -11.76%, which is greater than LJUL's maximum drawdown of -3.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMFE and LJUL.

Drawdown Indicators

	QMFE	LJUL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.76%	-3.21%	-8.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.81%	-0.52%	-4.29%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.20%	-0.04%	-0.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.09%	-0.12%	-0.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.84%	0.10%	+0.74%

Volatility

QMFE vs. LJUL - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - February (QMFE) has a higher volatility of 1.03% compared to Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July (LJUL) at 0.22%. This indicates that QMFE's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LJUL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QMFE	LJUL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.03%	0.22%	+0.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.53%	1.06%	+4.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.90%	1.58%	+5.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.68%	3.25%	+8.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.68%	3.25%	+8.43%

QMFE vs. LJUL - Expense Ratio Comparison

QMFE has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than LJUL's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

QMFE vs. LJUL - Dividend Comparison

QMFE has not paid dividends to shareholders, while LJUL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.23%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
LJUL Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July	5.23%	5.36%	2.78%
QMFE FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - February	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QMFE and LJUL in my portfolio?

QMFE and LJUL have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QMFE or LJUL?

QMFE has higher volatility (1.03%) compared to LJUL (0.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QMFE dropped -11.76% vs LJUL's -3.21%.

Which ETF is better, QMFE or LJUL?

On 1-year performance, QMFE leads with 20.18% vs 5.49% for LJUL. On fees, LJUL is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, LJUL has been the lower-risk option at 0.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QMFE or LJUL?

Over the 1-year period, QMFE has performed better with a 20.18% return vs 5.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QMFE or LJUL?

LJUL is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMFE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QMFE or LJUL?

LJUL has the higher dividend yield at 5.23%, compared with 0.00% for QMFE.

What is the main difference between QMFE and LJUL?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QMFE and 0.79% for LJUL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LJUL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.48 vs 2.94), 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.