BLCN vs. BUFH
BLCN (Siren ETF Trust Siren Nasdaq NexGen Economy ETF) and BUFH (FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BLCN is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Siren NASDAQ Blockchain Economy Index, while BUFH is a Defined Outcome fund managed by First Trust. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BLCN charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BUFH.
Performance
BLCN vs. BUFH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BLCN achieves a 13.09% return, which is significantly higher than BUFH's 2.45% return.
BLCN
- 1D
- 0.39%
- 1M
- 10.42%
- YTD
- 13.09%
- 6M
- 10.14%
- 1Y
- 27.10%
- 3Y*
- 9.50%
- 5Y*
- -9.77%
- 10Y*
- —
BUFH
- 1D
- -0.05%
- 1M
- 0.75%
- YTD
- 2.45%
- 6M
- 2.82%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BLCN vs. BUFH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BLCN Siren ETF Trust Siren Nasdaq NexGen Economy ETF | 13.09% | 9.83% |
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF | 2.45% | 3.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between BLCN and BUFH is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025 | 0.46 |
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
BLCN vs. BUFH — Risk / Return Rank
BLCN
BUFH
BLCN vs. BUFH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Siren ETF Trust Siren Nasdaq NexGen Economy ETF (BLCN) 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.
| BLCN | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.15 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.92 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.97 | — | — |
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
| BLCN | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.76 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.28 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.08 | 2.91 | -2.83 |
Drawdowns
BLCN vs. BUFH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BLCN drawdown since its inception was -67.51%, which is greater than BUFH's maximum drawdown of -1.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BLCN and BUFH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BLCN | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -67.51% | -1.53% | -65.98% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -29.53% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -45.26% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -67.51% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -45.11% | -0.05% | -45.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -30.29% | -0.18% | -30.11% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 13.82% | — | — |
Volatility
BLCN vs. BUFH - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BLCN | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 14.45% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 29.11% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 36.03% | 2.37% | +33.66% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 34.93% | 2.37% | +32.56% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 31.22% | 2.37% | +28.85% |
BLCN vs. BUFH - Expense Ratio Comparison
BLCN has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFH's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
BLCN vs. BUFH - Dividend Comparison
BLCN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.66%, while BUFH has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BLCN Siren ETF Trust Siren Nasdaq NexGen Economy ETF | 2.66% | 3.01% | 0.67% | 0.54% | 1.28% | 0.56% | 0.58% | 1.45% | 1.16% |
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% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BLCN and BUFH have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, BLCN is cheaper at 0.68% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
BLCN is cheaper with a 0.68% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFH.
BLCN has the higher dividend yield at 2.66%, compared with 0.00% for BUFH.
BLCN is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BUFH is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: SRN Advisors and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for BLCN and 0.95% for BUFH.
Find the right allocation for BLCN 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