QCJA vs QMMY
FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January vs FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - May
Which is better, QCJA or QMMY?
Each has led over a different period.
QCJA led over 1Y, QMMY over 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 | QCJA | QMMY |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.90%Tie | 0.90%Tie |
| AUM | $75M | $155M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 10 | 10 |
| YTD Return | +8.70%Best | +7.43% |
| 1Y Return | +11.92%Best | +10.14% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 6.8%Best | 9.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -10.7%Best | -12.8% |
| $10,000 over 1.7 years | $12,002 | $12,219Best |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | First Trust Portfolios (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Jan 17, 2025 | May 17, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 21, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.7 years).
QCJA vs QMMY 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 1.7 years both funds cover.
QCJA vs QMMY Performance
FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - May (QMMY) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year QCJA returned +11.92% while QMMY returned +10.14%. Year to date, QCJA is up 8.70% versus a gain of 7.43% for QMMY.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QMMY has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 9.2% compared with 6.8% for QCJA. 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 -10.7% for QCJA and -12.8% for QMMY. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.88. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QCJA charges 0.90% per year while QMMY charges 0.90%. On a $10,000 position that is $90 vs $90 annually. On income, QCJA currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for QMMY.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of QCJA and QMMY 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, QCJA or QMMY?
QCJA has an expense ratio of 0.90% while QMMY charges 0.90%. At the precision these are quoted to, they cost the same.
Which performed better, QCJA or QMMY?
Over the past year QCJA returned +11.92% vs +10.14% for QMMY, so QCJA leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), QCJA annualized +11.33% vs +12.51% for QMMY. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QCJA or QMMY?
QMMY has been the more volatile fund at 9.2% annualized versus 6.8% for QCJA. Worst drawdown: QCJA -10.7% vs QMMY -12.8%.
Should I hold both QCJA and QMMY?
QCJA and QMMY have a monthly-return correlation of 0.88, 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, QCJA or QMMY?
QCJA yields 0.00% while QMMY yields 0.00%, so QMMY currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QMMY better than QCJA?
QCJA led over 1Y, QMMY over the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.