BUFD vs. GMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BUFD (FT Vest Laddered Deep Buffer ETF) and GMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFD is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by FT Vest, while GMAR is a Options Trading fund actively managed by FT Vest. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BUFD returned 12.09%/yr vs 12.24%/yr for GMAR. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BUFD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for GMAR.

Performance

BUFD vs. GMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Laddered Deep Buffer ETF (BUFD) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUFD achieves a 5.08% return, which is significantly lower than GMAR's 7.89% return.

BUFD

• 1D: -0.08%
• 1M: 1.70%
• YTD: 5.08%
• 6M: 5.68%
• 1Y: 14.40%
• 3Y*: 12.09%
• 5Y*: 7.62%
• 10Y*: —

GMAR

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 1.52%
• YTD: 7.89%
• 6M: 8.66%
• 1Y: 15.30%
• 3Y*: 12.24%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFD vs. GMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BUFD FT Vest Laddered Deep Buffer ETF	5.08%	10.66%	12.42%	13.90%
GMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March	7.89%	9.29%	12.14%	11.95%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFD and GMAR is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2023	0.82

The correlation between BUFD and GMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

BUFD vs. GMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BUFD	GMAR
Technology	36.2%	36.2%
Financial Services	11.9%	11.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	10.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	8.4%
Industrials	8.1%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.9%
Energy	3.5%	3.5%
Utilities	2.3%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.8%

Return for Risk

BUFD vs. GMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFD

BUFD Risk / Return Rank: 87
BUFD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
BUFD Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
BUFD Omega Ratio Rank: 89
BUFD Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
BUFD Martin Ratio Rank: 92

GMAR

GMAR Risk / Return Rank: 97
GMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
GMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
GMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 98
GMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
GMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

BUFD vs. GMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Laddered Deep Buffer ETF (BUFD) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR). 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.

	BUFD	GMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.79	3.94	-1.15
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.32	6.60	-2.28
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	2.02	-0.44
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.21	8.56	-4.35
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	22.97	59.52	-36.55
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUFD vs. GMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFD Sharpe Ratio is 2.79, which is comparable to the GMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFD and GMAR, 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

	BUFD	GMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.79	3.94	-1.15
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.99	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.00	1.91	-0.91

Drawdowns

BUFD vs. GMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFD drawdown since its inception was -10.75%, which is greater than GMAR's maximum drawdown of -9.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFD and GMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFD	GMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.75%	-9.11%	-1.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.43%	-1.79%	-1.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.15%	-9.11%	-1.04%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-10.75%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.15%	-0.10%	-0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.97%	-0.54%	-1.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.63%	0.26%	+0.37%

Volatility

BUFD vs. GMAR - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Laddered Deep Buffer ETF (BUFD) has a higher volatility of 0.79% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) at 0.69%. This indicates that BUFD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFD	GMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.79%	0.69%	+0.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.94%	2.99%	+0.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.19%	3.90%	+1.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.73%	6.84%	+0.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.55%	6.84%	+0.71%

BUFD vs. GMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than GMAR's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFD vs. GMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFD nor GMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFD and GMAR in my portfolio?

BUFD and GMAR have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFD or GMAR?

BUFD has higher volatility (0.79%) compared to GMAR (0.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFD dropped -10.75% vs GMAR's -9.11%.

Which ETF is better, BUFD or GMAR?

On 3-year performance, GMAR leads with 12.24% vs 12.09% for BUFD. On fees, GMAR is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, GMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFD or GMAR?

Over the 3-year period, GMAR has performed better with a 12.24% return vs 12.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFD or GMAR?

GMAR is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BUFD or GMAR?

BUFD and GMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BUFD and GMAR?

BUFD is categorized as Defined Outcome, while GMAR is Options Trading. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BUFD and 0.85% for GMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.94 vs 2.79), 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.