GJAN vs METU
FT Vest US Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - January vs Direxion Daily META Bull 2X ETF
Which is better, GJAN or METU?
GJAN has been ahead.
GJAN has a lower expense ratio. GJAN led over 1Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | GJAN | METU |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.85%Best | 1.02% |
| AUM | $443M | $506M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 2.70% |
| Holdings | 10 | 20 |
| YTD Return | +8.27%Best | +2.47% |
| 1Y Return | +11.31%Best | -19.97% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +12.36% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 5.3%Best | 70.0% |
| Max Drawdown | -10.6%Best | -63.9% |
| $10,000 over 2.4 years | $12,741Best | $12,420 |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Direxion Shares ETF Trust |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Jan 20, 2023 | Jun 5, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.4 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 5, 2024 to Oct 15, 2026 (2.4 years).
GJAN vs METU growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 2.4 years both funds cover.
GJAN vs METU Performance
FT Vest US Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - January (GJAN) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Direxion Daily META Bull 2X ETF (METU) is an ETF from Direxion Shares ETF Trust. Over the past year GJAN returned +11.31% while METU returned -19.97%. Year to date, GJAN is up 8.27% versus a gain of 2.47% for METU.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
METU has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 70.0% compared with 5.3% for GJAN. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -10.6% for GJAN and -63.9% for METU. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.52. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GJAN charges 0.85% per year while METU charges 1.02%. On a $10,000 position that is $85 vs $102 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GJAN currently yields 0.00% against 2.70% for METU.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of GJAN and METU you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, GJAN or METU?
GJAN has an expense ratio of 0.85% while METU charges 1.02%. GJAN is the cheaper option, by $17 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, GJAN or METU?
Over the past year GJAN returned +11.31% vs -19.97% for METU, so GJAN leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), GJAN annualized +10.62% vs +9.45% for METU. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GJAN or METU?
METU has been the more volatile fund at 70.0% annualized versus 5.3% for GJAN. Worst drawdown: GJAN -10.6% vs METU -63.9%.
Should I hold both GJAN and METU?
GJAN and METU have a monthly-return correlation of 0.52, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, GJAN or METU?
GJAN yields 0.00% while METU yields 2.70%, so METU currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is METU better than GJAN?
GJAN has a lower expense ratio. GJAN led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.