AUGM vs. MMAX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AUGM (FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - August) and MMAX (iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, AUGM returned 7.62% vs 7.67% for MMAX. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. AUGM charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for MMAX.

Performance

AUGM vs. MMAX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - August (AUGM) and iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF (MMAX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AUGM achieves a 2.74% return, which is significantly lower than MMAX's 3.09% return.

AUGM

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: 0.85%
• YTD: 2.74%
• 6M: 3.18%
• 1Y: 7.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MMAX

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 0.60%
• YTD: 3.09%
• 6M: 3.75%
• 1Y: 7.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AUGM vs. MMAX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AUGM FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - August	2.74%	7.24%
MMAX iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF	3.09%	5.88%

Correlation

The correlation between AUGM and MMAX is 0.63, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 2, 2025	0.65

The correlation between AUGM and MMAX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

AUGM vs. MMAX — Risk / Return Rank

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

AUGM

AUGM Risk / Return Rank: 93
AUGM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
AUGM Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
AUGM Omega Ratio Rank: 95
AUGM Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
AUGM Martin Ratio Rank: 94

MMAX

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

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.

AUGM vs. MMAX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - August (AUGM) and iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF (MMAX). 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.

	AUGM	MMAX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.37	5.52	-2.15
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	5.36	10.56	-5.20
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.75	2.51	-0.76
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.73	22.49	-17.76
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	26.17	112.49	-86.32
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AUGM vs. MMAX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AUGM Sharpe Ratio is 3.37, which is lower than the MMAX Sharpe Ratio of 5.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AUGM and MMAX, 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

	AUGM	MMAX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.37	5.52	-2.15
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.87	3.13	-1.26

Drawdowns

AUGM vs. MMAX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AUGM drawdown since its inception was -4.27%, which is greater than MMAX's maximum drawdown of -1.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AUGM and MMAX.

Drawdown Indicators

	AUGM	MMAX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.27%	-1.93%	-2.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.62%	-0.34%	-1.28%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.03%	-0.13%	+0.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.35%	-0.10%	-0.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.29%	0.07%	+0.22%

Volatility

AUGM vs. MMAX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - August (AUGM) is 0.26%, while iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF (MMAX) has a volatility of 0.36%. This indicates that AUGM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MMAX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AUGM	MMAX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.26%	0.36%	-0.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.73%	0.96%	+0.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.28%	1.39%	+0.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.55%	2.49%	+1.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.55%	2.49%	+1.06%

AUGM vs. MMAX - Expense Ratio Comparison

AUGM has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than MMAX's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

AUGM vs. MMAX - Dividend Comparison

AUGM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MMAX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.27%.

Position	TTM	2025
AUGM FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - August	0.00%	0.00%
MMAX iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF	1.27%	1.31%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AUGM and MMAX in my portfolio?

AUGM and MMAX have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AUGM or MMAX?

MMAX has higher volatility (0.36%) compared to AUGM (0.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AUGM dropped -4.27% vs MMAX's -1.93%.

Which ETF is better, AUGM or MMAX?

On 1-year performance, MMAX leads with 7.67% vs 7.62% for AUGM. On fees, MMAX is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, AUGM has been the lower-risk option at 0.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AUGM or MMAX?

Over the 1-year period, MMAX has performed better with a 7.67% return vs 7.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AUGM or MMAX?

MMAX is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for AUGM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AUGM or MMAX?

MMAX has the higher dividend yield at 1.27%, compared with 0.00% for AUGM.

What is the main difference between AUGM and MMAX?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for AUGM and 0.50% for MMAX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MMAX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.52 vs 3.37), 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.