ABFL vs. BUFH
ABFL (Abacus FCF Leaders ETF) and BUFH (FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ABFL is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Abacus, while BUFH is a Defined Outcome fund managed by First Trust. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ABFL charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BUFH.
Performance
ABFL vs. BUFH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ABFL achieves a 17.63% return, which is significantly higher than BUFH's 2.45% return.
ABFL
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 6.04%
- YTD
- 17.63%
- 6M
- 17.18%
- 1Y
- 20.72%
- 3Y*
- 19.01%
- 5Y*
- 12.77%
- 10Y*
- —
BUFH
- 1D
- -0.05%
- 1M
- 0.75%
- YTD
- 2.45%
- 6M
- 2.82%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ABFL vs. BUFH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ABFL Abacus FCF Leaders ETF | 17.63% | 3.08% |
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF | 2.45% | 3.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between ABFL and BUFH is 0.64, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025 | 0.64 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
ABFL vs. BUFH — Risk / Return Rank
ABFL
BUFH
ABFL vs. BUFH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) and FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH). 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.
| ABFL | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.90 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.41 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ABFL | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.36 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.75 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.79 | 2.91 | -2.12 |
Drawdowns
ABFL vs. BUFH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ABFL drawdown since its inception was -34.95%, which is greater than BUFH's maximum drawdown of -1.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ABFL and BUFH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ABFL | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -34.95% | -1.53% | -33.42% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.17% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.92% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -21.88% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.05% | +0.05% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.99% | -0.18% | -4.81% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.21% | — | — |
Volatility
ABFL vs. BUFH - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ABFL | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.48% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.70% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.31% | 2.37% | +12.94% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.09% | 2.37% | +14.72% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.71% | 2.37% | +16.34% |
ABFL vs. BUFH - Expense Ratio Comparison
ABFL has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFH's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
ABFL vs. BUFH - Dividend Comparison
ABFL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, while BUFH has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ABFL Abacus FCF Leaders ETF | 0.53% | 0.62% | 0.70% | 0.94% | 1.36% | 9.63% | 0.41% | 0.72% | 0.62% | 0.40% |
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ABFL and BUFH have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ABFL is cheaper at 0.49% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ABFL is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFH.
ABFL has the higher dividend yield at 0.53%, compared with 0.00% for BUFH.
ABFL is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BUFH is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: Abacus and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for ABFL and 0.95% for BUFH.
Find the right allocation for ABFL and BUFH
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer