ACVF vs. BUFH
ACVF (American Conservative Values ETF) and BUFH (FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ACVF is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Ridgeline Research LLC, while BUFH is a Defined Outcome fund managed by First Trust. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ACVF charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BUFH.
Performance
ACVF vs. BUFH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ACVF achieves a 11.18% return, which is significantly higher than BUFH's 2.49% return.
ACVF
- 1D
- 0.48%
- 1M
- 6.31%
- YTD
- 11.18%
- 6M
- 12.23%
- 1Y
- 21.98%
- 3Y*
- 19.83%
- 5Y*
- 12.66%
- 10Y*
- —
BUFH
- 1D
- 0.05%
- 1M
- 0.71%
- YTD
- 2.49%
- 6M
- 3.04%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ACVF vs. BUFH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ACVF American Conservative Values ETF | 11.18% | 6.97% |
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF | 2.49% | 3.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between ACVF and BUFH is 0.69, 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 | 0.69 |
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
ACVF vs. BUFH — Risk / Return Rank
ACVF
BUFH
ACVF vs. BUFH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF) 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.
| ACVF | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.94 | — | — |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.72 | — | — |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | — | — |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.89 | — | — |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.75 | — | — |
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
| ACVF | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.94 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.78 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.03 | 2.94 | -1.91 |
Drawdowns
ACVF vs. BUFH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ACVF drawdown since its inception was -24.39%, which is greater than BUFH's maximum drawdown of -1.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACVF and BUFH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ACVF | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -24.39% | -1.53% | -22.86% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.70% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.82% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.39% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.75% | -0.18% | -4.57% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.89% | — | — |
Volatility
ACVF vs. BUFH - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ACVF | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.06% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.00% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.39% | 2.37% | +9.02% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.23% | 2.37% | +13.86% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.97% | 2.37% | +13.60% |
ACVF vs. BUFH - Expense Ratio Comparison
ACVF has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFH's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
ACVF vs. BUFH - Dividend Comparison
ACVF'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACVF American Conservative Values ETF | 0.53% | 0.59% | 0.59% | 0.82% | 0.93% | 0.61% | 0.23% |
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ACVF and BUFH have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ACVF is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ACVF is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFH.
ACVF has the higher dividend yield at 0.53%, compared with 0.00% for BUFH.
ACVF is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BUFH is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: Ridgeline Research LLC and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for ACVF and 0.95% for BUFH.
Find the right allocation for ACVF 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