BUFC vs. UGA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BUFC (AB Conservative Buffer ETF) and UGA (United States Gasoline Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFC is a Options Trading fund actively managed by AllianceBernstein, while UGA is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. BUFC is actively managed, while UGA is passively managed. Over the past year, BUFC returned 8.86% vs 80.94% for UGA. At a 0.00 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BUFC charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for UGA.

Performance

BUFC vs. UGA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). 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 UGA's 75.49% return.

BUFC

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

UGA

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: -12.35%
• YTD: 75.49%
• 6M: 64.35%
• 1Y: 80.94%
• 3Y*: 22.21%
• 5Y*: 25.10%
• 10Y*: 14.43%

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

BUFC vs. UGA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BUFC AB Conservative Buffer ETF	2.84%	5.50%	10.81%	0.47%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	75.49%	-2.00%	3.77%	3.46%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFC and UGA is -0.20, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2023	0.00

The correlation between BUFC and UGA shifts across timeframes, from -0.20 (1 year) to 0.00 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

BUFC vs. UGA — 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

UGA

UGA Risk / Return Rank: 69
UGA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
UGA Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
UGA Omega Ratio Rank: 60
UGA Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
UGA Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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. UGA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). 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	UGA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	2.32	-0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.97	2.75	+0.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.37	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.46	5.47	-3.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.49	13.25	-2.76
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. UGA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFC Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the UGA Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFC and UGA, 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	UGA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.09	2.32	-0.22
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.73	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.39	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.42	0.12	+1.30

Drawdowns

BUFC vs. UGA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFC drawdown since its inception was -8.29%, smaller than the maximum UGA drawdown of -86.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFC and UGA.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFC	UGA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.29%	-86.59%	+78.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.62%	-14.88%	+11.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.68%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-38.11%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.12%	-12.35%	+12.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.76%	-36.76%	+36.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.85%	6.13%	-5.28%

Volatility

BUFC vs. UGA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) is 0.98%, while United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA) has a volatility of 11.66%. This indicates that BUFC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UGA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFC	UGA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.98%	11.66%	-10.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.36%	30.41%	-27.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.25%	35.14%	-30.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.64%	34.38%	-28.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.64%	37.27%	-31.63%

BUFC vs. UGA - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFC has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than UGA's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFC vs. UGA - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFC nor UGA has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFC and UGA in my portfolio?

BUFC and UGA have a correlation of -0.20, 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 UGA?

UGA has higher volatility (11.66%) compared to BUFC (0.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFC dropped -8.29% vs UGA's -86.59%.

Which ETF is better, BUFC or UGA?

On 1-year performance, UGA leads with 80.94% vs 8.86% for BUFC. On fees, BUFC is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, BUFC has been the lower-risk option at 0.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFC or UGA?

Over the 1-year period, UGA has performed better with a 80.94% 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 UGA?

BUFC is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for UGA.

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

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

What is the main difference between BUFC and UGA?

BUFC is categorized as Options Trading, while UGA is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: AllianceBernstein and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for BUFC and 0.75% for UGA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UGA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 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.