BUFC vs. QFLR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BUFC (AB Conservative Buffer ETF) and QFLR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFC is a Options Trading fund actively managed by AllianceBernstein, while QFLR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Innovator. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BUFC returned 7.90% vs 20.74% for QFLR. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BUFC charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for QFLR.

Performance

BUFC vs. QFLR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUFC achieves a 2.49% return, which is significantly lower than QFLR's 3.27% return.

BUFC

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: -0.36%
• YTD: 2.49%
• 6M: 2.43%
• 1Y: 7.90%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QFLR

• 1D: -2.77%
• 1M: -2.26%
• YTD: 3.27%
• 6M: 2.61%
• 1Y: 20.74%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFC vs. QFLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BUFC AB Conservative Buffer ETF	2.49%	5.50%	10.00%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	3.27%	17.27%	16.30%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFC and QFLR is 0.72, 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	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2024	0.72

The correlation between BUFC and QFLR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BUFC vs. QFLR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFC

BUFC Risk / Return Rank: 57
BUFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
BUFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
BUFC Omega Ratio Rank: 63
BUFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
BUFC Martin Ratio Rank: 57

QFLR

QFLR Risk / Return Rank: 54
QFLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
QFLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
QFLR Omega Ratio Rank: 53
QFLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
QFLR 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. QFLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BUFC	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.82	1.63	+0.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.55	2.18	+0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.31	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.19	2.74	-0.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.27	10.85	-1.58

BUFC vs. QFLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFC Sharpe Ratio is 1.82, which is comparable to the QFLR Sharpe Ratio of 1.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFC and QFLR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BUFC vs. QFLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFC drawdown since its inception was -8.29%, smaller than the maximum QFLR drawdown of -13.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFC and QFLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFC	QFLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.29%	-13.97%	+5.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.62%	-7.61%	+3.99%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.55%	-3.86%	+3.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.75%	-2.50%	+1.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.85%	1.92%	-1.07%

Volatility

BUFC vs. QFLR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) is 1.62%, while Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) has a volatility of 6.59%. This indicates that BUFC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QFLR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFC	QFLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.62%	6.59%	-4.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.54%	9.90%	-6.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.36%	12.77%	-8.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.64%	13.13%	-7.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.64%	13.13%	-7.49%

BUFC vs. QFLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFC has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than QFLR's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFC vs. QFLR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFC nor QFLR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BUFC AB Conservative Buffer ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	0.00%	0.02%	0.03%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFC and QFLR in my portfolio?

BUFC and QFLR have a correlation of 0.72, 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 QFLR?

QFLR has higher volatility (6.59%) compared to BUFC (1.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFC dropped -8.29% vs QFLR's -13.97%.

Which ETF is better, BUFC or QFLR?

On 1-year performance, QFLR leads with 20.74% vs 7.90% for BUFC. On fees, BUFC is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, BUFC has been the lower-risk option at 1.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFC or QFLR?

Over the 1-year period, QFLR has performed better with a 20.74% return vs 7.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFC or QFLR?

BUFC is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for QFLR.

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

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

What is the main difference between BUFC and QFLR?

BUFC is categorized as Options Trading, while QFLR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: AllianceBernstein and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for BUFC and 0.89% for QFLR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BUFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.82 vs 1.63), 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.