BUFB vs. STEN
BUFB (Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF) and STEN (iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Sep ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. BUFB is passively managed, while STEN is actively managed. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BUFB charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for STEN.
Performance
BUFB vs. STEN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BUFB achieves a 7.03% return, which is significantly lower than STEN's 7.79% return.
BUFB
- 1D
- -0.31%
- 1M
- 2.46%
- YTD
- 7.03%
- 6M
- 7.78%
- 1Y
- 19.07%
- 3Y*
- 15.74%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
STEN
- 1D
- -0.30%
- 1M
- 3.31%
- YTD
- 7.79%
- 6M
- 8.22%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BUFB vs. STEN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BUFB Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF | 7.03% | 2.33% |
STEN iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Sep ETF | 7.79% | 2.05% |
Correlation
The correlation between BUFB and STEN is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 2, 2025 | 0.93 |
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
BUFB vs. STEN — Risk / Return Rank
BUFB
STEN
BUFB vs. STEN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF (BUFB) and iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Sep ETF (STEN). 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.
| BUFB | STEN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.51 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.74 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 19.82 | — | — |
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
| BUFB | STEN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.55 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.91 | 1.67 | -0.76 |
Drawdowns
BUFB vs. STEN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BUFB drawdown since its inception was -14.88%, which is greater than STEN's maximum drawdown of -6.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFB and STEN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BUFB | STEN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.88% | -6.21% | -8.67% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.12% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -13.75% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.31% | -0.30% | -0.01% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.88% | -0.92% | -1.96% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.96% | — | — |
Volatility
BUFB vs. STEN - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BUFB | STEN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.33% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.76% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 7.51% | 9.24% | -1.73% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 12.01% | 9.24% | +2.77% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 12.01% | 9.24% | +2.77% |
BUFB vs. STEN - Expense Ratio Comparison
BUFB has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than STEN's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
BUFB vs. STEN - Dividend Comparison
BUFB has not paid dividends to shareholders, while STEN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.29%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
BUFB Innovator Laddered Allocation Buffer ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% |
STEN iShares Large Cap 10% Target Buffer Sep ETF | 0.29% | 0.31% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.93, BUFB and STEN 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.
On fees, STEN is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
STEN is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for BUFB.
STEN has the higher dividend yield at 0.29%, compared with 0.00% for BUFB.
They also come from different issuers: Innovator and BlackRock. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for BUFB and 0.50% for STEN.
Find the right allocation for BUFB and STEN
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