WEAT vs. FLJJ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

WEAT (Teucrium Wheat Fund) and FLJJ (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - WEAT is a Agricultural Commodities fund tracking the Teucrium Wheat Fund Benchmark, while FLJJ is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Allianz. WEAT is passively managed, while FLJJ is actively managed. Over the past year, WEAT returned -0.35% vs 15.29% for FLJJ. At a correlation of -0.05, they often move in opposite directions. WEAT charges 1.91%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for FLJJ.

Performance

WEAT vs. FLJJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Teucrium Wheat Fund (WEAT) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF (FLJJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, WEAT achieves a 13.52% return, which is significantly higher than FLJJ's 4.98% return.

WEAT

• 1D: -2.07%
• 1M: -6.32%
• YTD: 13.52%
• 6M: 8.73%
• 1Y: -0.35%
• 3Y*: -10.48%
• 5Y*: -7.95%
• 10Y*: -6.84%

FLJJ

• 1D: -0.00%
• 1M: 1.88%
• YTD: 4.98%
• 6M: 5.80%
• 1Y: 15.29%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

WEAT vs. FLJJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
WEAT Teucrium Wheat Fund	13.52%	-17.14%	-15.29%
FLJJ Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF	4.98%	11.35%	14.19%

Correlation

The correlation between WEAT and FLJJ is -0.22, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2024	-0.05

The correlation between WEAT and FLJJ shifts across timeframes, from -0.22 (1 year) to -0.05 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

WEAT vs. FLJJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

WEAT

WEAT Risk / Return Rank: 8
WEAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
WEAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
WEAT Omega Ratio Rank: 8
WEAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
WEAT Martin Ratio Rank: 8

FLJJ

FLJJ Risk / Return Rank: 89
FLJJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
FLJJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
FLJJ Omega Ratio Rank: 93
FLJJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
FLJJ Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

WEAT vs. FLJJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Teucrium Wheat Fund (WEAT) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF (FLJJ). 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.

	WEAT	FLJJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.02	3.02	-3.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.15	4.67	-4.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	1.65	-0.63
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.02	3.98	-4.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.03	20.87	-20.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

WEAT vs. FLJJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current WEAT Sharpe Ratio is -0.02, which is lower than the FLJJ Sharpe Ratio of 3.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of WEAT and FLJJ, 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

	WEAT	FLJJ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.02	3.02	-3.04
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.26	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.26	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.41	2.14	-2.55

Drawdowns

WEAT vs. FLJJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum WEAT drawdown since its inception was -84.32%, which is greater than FLJJ's maximum drawdown of -6.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WEAT and FLJJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	WEAT	FLJJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-84.32%	-6.91%	-77.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.85%	-3.86%	-13.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-46.27%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-67.83%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-67.83%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-82.12%	-0.05%	-82.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-63.12%	-0.78%	-62.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.29%	0.73%	+10.56%

Volatility

WEAT vs. FLJJ - Volatility Comparison

Teucrium Wheat Fund (WEAT) has a higher volatility of 10.00% compared to Allianzim U.S. Large Cap 6 Month Floor5 Jan/Jul ETF (FLJJ) at 0.86%. This indicates that WEAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLJJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	WEAT	FLJJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.00%	0.86%	+9.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.05%	3.59%	+14.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.62%	5.10%	+17.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.51%	6.21%	+24.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.80%	6.21%	+20.59%

WEAT vs. FLJJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

WEAT has a 1.91% expense ratio, which is higher than FLJJ's 0.74% expense ratio.

Dividends

WEAT vs. FLJJ - Dividend Comparison

Neither WEAT nor FLJJ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both WEAT and FLJJ in my portfolio?

WEAT and FLJJ have a correlation of -0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, WEAT or FLJJ?

WEAT has higher volatility (10.00%) compared to FLJJ (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, WEAT dropped -84.32% vs FLJJ's -6.91%.

Which ETF is better, WEAT or FLJJ?

On 1-year performance, FLJJ leads with 15.29% vs -0.35% for WEAT. On fees, FLJJ is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, FLJJ has been the lower-risk option at 0.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, WEAT or FLJJ?

Over the 1-year period, FLJJ has performed better with a 15.29% return vs -0.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, WEAT or FLJJ?

FLJJ is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 1.91% for WEAT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, WEAT or FLJJ?

WEAT and FLJJ have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between WEAT and FLJJ?

WEAT is categorized as Agricultural Commodities, while FLJJ is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: Teucrium and Allianz. Their fees differ too: 1.91% for WEAT and 0.74% for FLJJ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLJJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.02 vs -0.02), 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.