JULM vs QQQ
FT Vest US Equity Max Buffer ETF - July vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, JULM or QQQ?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ 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 | JULM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.85% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $34M | $498.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 8 | 321 |
| YTD Return | +4.21% | +22.67%Best |
| 1Y Return | +5.40% | +24.33%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +29.05% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +17.00% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 2.6%Best | 17.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -4.4%Best | -22.8% |
| $10,000 over 2.2 years | $11,550 | $16,592Best |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jul 24, 2024 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 25, 2024 to Oct 2, 2026 (2.2 years).
JULM vs QQQ 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 2.2 years both funds cover.
JULM vs QQQ Performance
FT Vest US Equity Max Buffer ETF - July (JULM) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year JULM returned +5.40% while QQQ returned +24.33%. Year to date, JULM is up 4.21% versus a gain of 22.67% for QQQ.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.5% compared with 2.6% for JULM. 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 -4.4% for JULM and -22.8% for QQQ. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.79. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
JULM charges 0.85% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $85 vs $18 annually, a gap of $67 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, JULM currently yields 0.00% against 0.42% for QQQ.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of JULM and QQQ 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, JULM or QQQ?
JULM has an expense ratio of 0.85% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $67 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, JULM or QQQ?
Over the past year JULM returned +5.40% vs +24.33% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), JULM annualized +6.77% vs +25.88% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, JULM or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.5% annualized versus 2.6% for JULM. Worst drawdown: JULM -4.4% vs QQQ -22.8%.
Should I hold both JULM and QQQ?
JULM and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.79, 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, JULM or QQQ?
JULM yields 0.00% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than JULM?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ 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.