APRW vs. FEBT

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

APRW (AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF) and FEBT (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF) are both Options Trading funds from Allianz. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, APRW returned 10.34%/yr vs 16.50%/yr for FEBT. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.74% expense ratio.

Performance

APRW vs. FEBT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, APRW achieves a 6.37% return, which is significantly lower than FEBT's 8.27% return.

APRW

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 1.20%
• YTD: 6.37%
• 6M: 7.18%
• 1Y: 12.77%
• 3Y*: 10.34%
• 5Y*: 7.20%
• 10Y*: —

FEBT

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 2.83%
• YTD: 8.27%
• 6M: 9.35%
• 1Y: 21.32%
• 3Y*: 16.50%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

APRW vs. FEBT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
APRW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF	6.37%	6.18%	11.25%	10.17%
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	8.27%	12.72%	17.29%	14.73%

Correlation

The correlation between APRW and FEBT is 0.86, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2023	0.84

The correlation between APRW and FEBT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

APRW vs. FEBT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	APRW	FEBT
Technology	36.2%	36.2%
Financial Services	11.9%	11.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	10.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	8.4%
Industrials	8.1%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.9%
Energy	3.5%	3.5%
Utilities	2.3%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.8%

Return for Risk

APRW vs. FEBT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

APRW

APRW Risk / Return Rank: 98
APRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
APRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
APRW Omega Ratio Rank: 98
APRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
APRW Martin Ratio Rank: 99

FEBT

FEBT Risk / Return Rank: 82
FEBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
FEBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
FEBT Omega Ratio Rank: 87
FEBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
FEBT Martin Ratio Rank: 85

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

APRW vs. FEBT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT). 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.

	APRW	FEBT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	4.91	2.80	+2.11
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	9.02	4.02	+4.99
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.26	1.55	+0.71
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	17.37	3.54	+13.83
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	89.07	18.12	+70.95
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

APRW vs. FEBT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current APRW Sharpe Ratio is 4.91, which is higher than the FEBT Sharpe Ratio of 2.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of APRW and FEBT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	APRW	FEBT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.91	2.80	+2.11
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.08	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.16	1.66	-0.50

Drawdowns

APRW vs. FEBT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum APRW drawdown since its inception was -9.61%, smaller than the maximum FEBT drawdown of -13.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for APRW and FEBT.

Drawdown Indicators

	APRW	FEBT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.61%	-13.19%	+3.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.75%	-6.04%	+5.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.61%	-13.19%	+3.58%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-9.61%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.12%	-1.18%	+0.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.15%	1.18%	-1.03%

Volatility

APRW vs. FEBT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW) is 0.63%, while Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) has a volatility of 1.27%. This indicates that APRW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FEBT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	APRW	FEBT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.63%	1.27%	-0.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.84%	5.97%	-4.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.62%	7.66%	-5.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.72%	9.76%	-3.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.41%	9.76%	-3.35%

APRW vs. FEBT - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both APRW and FEBT have an expense ratio of 0.74%.

Dividends

APRW vs. FEBT - Dividend Comparison

Neither APRW nor FEBT has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
APRW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	3.67%
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.28%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both APRW and FEBT in my portfolio?

APRW and FEBT have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, APRW or FEBT?

FEBT has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to APRW (0.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, APRW dropped -9.61% vs FEBT's -13.19%.

Which ETF is better, APRW or FEBT?

On 3-year performance, FEBT leads with 16.50% vs 10.34% for APRW. Both ETFs have the same 0.74% expense ratio. On volatility, APRW has been the lower-risk option at 0.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, APRW or FEBT?

Over the 3-year period, FEBT has performed better with a 16.50% return vs 10.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, APRW or FEBT?

APRW and FEBT have the same expense ratio: 0.74% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, APRW or FEBT?

APRW and FEBT have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

APRW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.91 vs 2.80), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.