PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
AUGW vs. FEBT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

AUGW vs. FEBT - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AUGW achieves a 4.26% return, which is significantly lower than FEBT's 8.10% return.


AUGW

1D
0.09%
1M
1.25%
YTD
4.26%
6M
4.69%
1Y
13.10%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

FEBT

1D
0.18%
1M
2.45%
YTD
8.10%
6M
9.05%
1Y
20.53%
3Y*
16.51%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AUGW vs. FEBT - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
AUGW
AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Aug ETF
4.26%11.19%13.19%3.32%
FEBT
Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF
8.10%12.72%17.29%5.18%

Correlation

The correlation between AUGW and FEBT is 0.91, 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

0.91

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 2, 2023

0.89

The correlation between AUGW and FEBT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

AUGW vs. FEBT - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
AUGW
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%

Technology

AUGW
36.2%
FEBT
36.2%

Financial Services

AUGW
11.9%
FEBT
11.9%

Communication Services

AUGW
10.9%
FEBT
10.9%

Consumer Cyclical

AUGW
10.1%
FEBT
10.1%

Healthcare

AUGW
8.4%
FEBT
8.4%

Industrials

AUGW
8.1%
FEBT
8.1%

Consumer Defensive

AUGW
4.9%
FEBT
4.9%

Energy

AUGW
3.5%
FEBT
3.5%

Utilities

AUGW
2.3%
FEBT
2.3%

Real Estate

AUGW
1.9%
FEBT
1.9%

Basic Materials

AUGW
1.8%
FEBT
1.8%

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

AUGW vs. FEBT — Risk / Return Rank

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

AUGW
AUGW Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
AUGW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8686
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AUGW Sortino Ratio Rank: 9191
Sortino Ratio Rank
AUGW Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
AUGW Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
AUGW Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
Martin Ratio Rank

FEBT
FEBT Risk / Return Rank: 8282
Overall Rank
FEBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FEBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
FEBT Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
FEBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 6969
Calmar Ratio Rank
FEBT Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

AUGW vs. FEBT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Aug ETF (AUGW) 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.


AUGWFEBTDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.35

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.59

1.52

+0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.11

3.41

+0.70

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

22.30

17.43

+4.86

AUGW vs. FEBT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AUGW Sharpe Ratio is 2.81, which is comparable to the FEBT Sharpe Ratio of 2.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AUGW 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


AUGWFEBTDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.81

2.69

+0.11

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.68

1.65

+0.03

Drawdowns

AUGW vs. FEBT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AUGW drawdown since its inception was -8.76%, smaller than the maximum FEBT drawdown of -13.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AUGW and FEBT.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


AUGWFEBTDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-8.76%

-13.19%

+4.43%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.20%

-6.04%

+2.84%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.19%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.16%

+0.16%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.74%

-1.18%

+0.44%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.59%

1.18%

-0.59%

Volatility

AUGW vs. FEBT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Aug ETF (AUGW) is 0.45%, while Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) has a volatility of 1.22%. This indicates that AUGW 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


AUGWFEBTDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.45%

1.22%

-0.77%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

3.41%

5.98%

-2.57%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.69%

7.66%

-2.97%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

6.76%

9.75%

-2.99%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

6.76%

9.75%

-2.99%

AUGW vs. FEBT - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

AUGW vs. FEBT - Dividend Comparison

Neither AUGW nor FEBT has paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024
AUGW
AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Aug ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%
FEBT
Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF
0.00%0.00%0.28%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.91, AUGW and FEBT move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

FEBT has higher volatility (1.22%) compared to AUGW (0.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AUGW dropped -8.76% vs FEBT's -13.19%.

On 1-year performance, FEBT leads with 20.53% vs 13.10% for AUGW. Both ETFs have the same 0.74% expense ratio. On volatility, AUGW has been the lower-risk option at 0.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, FEBT has performed better with a 20.53% return vs 13.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

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

AUGW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.81 vs 2.69), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AUGW and FEBT

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