Data as of .
FTQI vs LJUL: which paid, and which earned it?
Over the year FTQI paid 12.0% of its price in cash against LJUL’s 5.2%, and returned more with it reinvested.
ETFIQ Return Stability Score: FTQI scores higher
Was the payout funded by returns, or by your own capital?
A percentile among the 173 income ETFs writing on an index or proxy. It is a position in a set, not a rating, and neither end of it is a recommendation. All income ETFs ranked by it · How it is computed
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, FTQI and LJUL hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Only in FTQI | Only in LJUL |
|---|---|
| Apple Inc. 8.76% | TREASURY BILL 99.57% |
| NVIDIA Corporation 6.55% | TREASURY BILL 0.43% |
| US Dollar 5.75% | |
| Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 5.41% | |
| Amazon.com, Inc. 4.13% | |
| Cisco Systems, Inc. 3.18% | |
| Meta Platforms, Inc. (Class A) 2.75% | |
| Tesla, Inc. 2.68% |
Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026 and Sep 18, 2026.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Cash paid | Against the benchmark | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FTQI | LJUL | FTQI | LJUL | FTQI | LJUL | |
| 3 months | +4.0% | +1.5% | 2.9% | 1.3% | +6.5 pts | −0.8 pts |
| 6 months | +18.3% | +3.1% | 6.3% | 2.6% | −5.9 pts | −14.9 pts |
| 1 year | +21.5% | +5.0% | 12.0% | 5.2% | −0.3 pts | −11.5 pts |
| 3 years | +62.9% | not published | 37.0% | not published | −35.3 pts | not published |
| Since launch | +141.7% | +13.2% | 78.8% | 11.7% | −675.0 pts | −30.2 pts |
| FTQI First Trust Nasdaq BuyWrite Income ETF Covered call on QQQ, paying monthly | LJUL Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - July Buffer with income on SPY, paying monthly | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | First Trust | Innovator |
| Strategy | covered call | buffer with income |
| Benchmark | Nasdaq-100 (QQQ) | S&P 500 (SPY) |
| Pays | monthly | monthly |
| Payout rate, annualized | 11.9% | 5.3% |
| Expense ratio | 0.75% | 0.79% |
| Cash paid, 1 year | 12.0% | 5.2% |
| Price change, 1 year | +8.0% | −0.3% |
| Total return, 1 year | +21.5% | +5.0% |
| Benchmark return, 1 year | +21.8% | +16.6% |
| Ahead or behind | −0.3 pts | −11.5 pts |
| Return of capital, latest estimate | not published | not published |
| Age | 4637 days | 809 days |
| Net assets | $975m | $9m |
FTQI in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, FTQI paid 12.0% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 8.0%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +21.5%. Nasdaq-100 (QQQ) returned +21.8% over the same days, so a holder was about even. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 11.9%, paid monthly.
LJUL in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, LJUL paid 5.2% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 0.3%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +5.0%. S&P 500 (SPY) returned +16.6% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 11.5 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 5.3%, paid monthly.
Questions people ask
- Which paid more, FTQI or LJUL?
- Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, FTQI paid 12.0% of its starting price in cash and LJUL paid 5.2%, so FTQI paid more. Cash paid is not the same as money made: the price change matters too.
- Which returned more once distributions are counted, FTQI or LJUL?
- With every distribution reinvested, FTQI returned +21.5% and LJUL returned +5.0% over the year to Sep 18, 2026, so FTQI returned more.
- Which is cheaper, FTQI or LJUL?
- FTQI charges 0.75% a year and LJUL charges 0.79%, so FTQI is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Other comparisons
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, FTQI against LJUL, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/ftqi-vs-ljul Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.