BUFC vs. BUFM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BUFC (AB Conservative Buffer ETF) and BUFM (AB Moderate Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFC is a Options Trading fund actively managed by AllianceBernstein, while BUFM is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by AllianceBernstein. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BUFC returned 8.86% vs 12.60% for BUFM. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.69% expense ratio.

Performance

BUFC vs. BUFM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) and AB Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUFC achieves a 2.84% return, which is significantly lower than BUFM's 3.71% return.

BUFC

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 1.58%
• YTD: 2.84%
• 6M: 3.28%
• 1Y: 8.86%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BUFM

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 2.19%
• YTD: 3.71%
• 6M: 4.16%
• 1Y: 12.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFC vs. BUFM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BUFC AB Conservative Buffer ETF	2.84%	5.50%	-0.58%
BUFM AB Moderate Buffer ETF	3.71%	12.94%	-1.10%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFC and BUFM is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 11, 2024	0.78

The correlation between BUFC and BUFM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BUFC vs. BUFM — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFC

BUFC Risk / Return Rank: 61
BUFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
BUFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
BUFC Omega Ratio Rank: 68
BUFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
BUFC Martin Ratio Rank: 60

BUFM

BUFM Risk / Return Rank: 67
BUFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BUFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
BUFM Omega Ratio Rank: 71
BUFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
BUFM Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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.

BUFC vs. BUFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) and AB Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFM). 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.

	BUFC	BUFM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	2.19	-0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.97	3.05	-0.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.42	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.46	3.11	-0.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.49	11.49	-1.00
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUFC vs. BUFM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFC Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the BUFM Sharpe Ratio of 2.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFC and BUFM, 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

	BUFC	BUFM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.09	2.19	-0.10
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.42	1.12	+0.30

Drawdowns

BUFC vs. BUFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFC drawdown since its inception was -8.29%, smaller than the maximum BUFM drawdown of -9.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFC and BUFM.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFC	BUFM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.29%	-9.43%	+1.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.62%	-4.07%	+0.45%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.12%	-0.13%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.76%	-0.99%	+0.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.85%	1.10%	-0.25%

Volatility

BUFC vs. BUFM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) is 0.98%, while AB Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFM) has a volatility of 1.05%. This indicates that BUFC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUFM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFC	BUFM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.98%	1.05%	-0.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.36%	4.37%	-1.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.25%	5.77%	-1.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.64%	9.43%	-3.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.64%	9.43%	-3.79%

BUFC vs. BUFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BUFC and BUFM have an expense ratio of 0.69%.

Dividends

BUFC vs. BUFM - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFC nor BUFM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFC and BUFM in my portfolio?

BUFC and BUFM have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFC or BUFM?

BUFM has higher volatility (1.05%) compared to BUFC (0.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFC dropped -8.29% vs BUFM's -9.43%.

Which ETF is better, BUFC or BUFM?

On 1-year performance, BUFM leads with 12.60% vs 8.86% for BUFC. Both ETFs have the same 0.69% expense ratio. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFC or BUFM?

Over the 1-year period, BUFM has performed better with a 12.60% return vs 8.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFC or BUFM?

BUFC and BUFM have the same expense ratio: 0.69% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BUFC or BUFM?

BUFC and BUFM have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BUFC and BUFM?

BUFC is categorized as Options Trading, while BUFM is Defined Outcome.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BUFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 vs 2.09), 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.