BUFC vs. PBAP

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) and PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April (PBAP).

BUFC and PBAP are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. BUFC is an actively managed fund by AllianceBernstein. It was launched on Dec 12, 2023. PBAP is an actively managed fund by PGIM. It was launched on Mar 28, 2024.

Performance

BUFC vs. PBAP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) and PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April (PBAP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

BUFC vs. PBAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BUFC AB Conservative Buffer ETF	-1.68%	5.50%	7.43%
PBAP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April	1.48%	6.34%	8.88%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUFC achieves a -1.68% return, which is significantly lower than PBAP's 1.48% return.

BUFC

• 1D: 1.03%
• 1M: -1.19%
• YTD: -1.68%
• 6M: 0.01%
• 1Y: 5.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PBAP

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 1.08%
• YTD: 1.48%
• 6M: 3.46%
• 1Y: 10.49%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFC vs. PBAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFC has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than PBAP's 0.50% expense ratio.

BUFC

AB Conservative Buffer ETF

PBAP

PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April

Return for Risk

BUFC vs. PBAP — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFC

BUFC Risk / Return Rank: 42
BUFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
BUFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
BUFC Omega Ratio Rank: 45
BUFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
BUFC Martin Ratio Rank: 53

PBAP

PBAP Risk / Return Rank: 84
PBAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
PBAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
PBAP Omega Ratio Rank: 95
PBAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
PBAP Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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. PBAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) and PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April (PBAP). 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	PBAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.70	1.46	-0.76
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.11	2.19	-1.08
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.48	-0.31
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.99	1.91	-0.93
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.24	13.78	-8.54
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. PBAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFC Sharpe Ratio is 0.70, which is lower than the PBAP Sharpe Ratio of 1.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFC and PBAP, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BUFC	PBAP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.70	1.46	-0.76
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.13	1.15	-0.02

Correlation

The correlation between BUFC and PBAP is 0.79, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

BUFC vs. PBAP - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFC nor PBAP has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

BUFC vs. PBAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFC drawdown since its inception was -8.29%, smaller than the maximum PBAP drawdown of -9.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFC and PBAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFC	PBAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.29%	-9.70%	+1.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.29%	-5.83%	+0.54%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.63%	0.00%	-2.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.78%	-0.86%	+0.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.99%	0.81%	+0.18%

Volatility

BUFC vs. PBAP - Volatility Comparison

AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) has a higher volatility of 1.87% compared to PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April (PBAP) at 0.84%. This indicates that BUFC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PBAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFC	PBAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.87%	0.84%	+1.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.56%	2.34%	+1.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.30%	7.26%	+0.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.77%	7.33%	-1.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.77%	7.33%	-1.56%