BUFG vs. APRW

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

BUFG (FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF) and APRW (AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BUFG returned 13.85%/yr vs 9.95%/yr for APRW. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BUFG charges 1.05%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for APRW.

Performance

BUFG vs. APRW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG) and AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with BUFG having a 6.18% return and APRW slightly higher at 6.25%.

BUFG

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 0.45%
• YTD: 6.18%
• 6M: 5.79%
• 1Y: 17.40%
• 3Y*: 13.85%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

APRW

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 0.31%
• YTD: 6.25%
• 6M: 6.43%
• 1Y: 12.48%
• 3Y*: 9.95%
• 5Y*: 7.04%
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFG vs. APRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BUFG FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF	6.18%	12.33%	15.13%	18.49%	-11.61%	1.50%
APRW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF	6.25%	6.18%	11.25%	12.38%	-2.90%	0.74%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFG and APRW is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2021	0.86

The correlation between BUFG and APRW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BUFG vs. APRW — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFG

BUFG Risk / Return Rank: 75
BUFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
BUFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
BUFG Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BUFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
BUFG Martin Ratio Rank: 82

APRW

APRW Risk / Return Rank: 98
APRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
APRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
APRW Omega Ratio Rank: 98
APRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
APRW 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.

BUFG vs. APRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG) and AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW). 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.

	BUFG	APRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.28	4.66	-2.38
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.27	8.31	-5.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	2.18	-0.74
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.05	14.03	-10.99
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.84	75.16	-59.32

BUFG vs. APRW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFG Sharpe Ratio is 2.28, which is lower than the APRW Sharpe Ratio of 4.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFG and APRW, 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

BUFG vs. APRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFG drawdown since its inception was -17.62%, which is greater than APRW's maximum drawdown of -9.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFG and APRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFG	APRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.62%	-9.61%	-8.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.74%	-0.89%	-4.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.20%	-9.61%	-3.59%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-9.61%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.51%	-0.16%	-0.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.58%	-1.11%	-2.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.10%	0.17%	+0.93%

Volatility

BUFG vs. APRW - Volatility Comparison

FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG) has a higher volatility of 2.28% compared to AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW) at 1.09%. This indicates that BUFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than APRW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFG	APRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.28%	1.09%	+1.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.13%	2.10%	+4.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.68%	2.69%	+4.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.82%	6.73%	+5.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.82%	6.40%	+5.42%

BUFG vs. APRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFG has a 1.05% expense ratio, which is higher than APRW's 0.74% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFG vs. APRW - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFG nor APRW has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
APRW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	3.67%
BUFG FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFG and APRW in my portfolio?

BUFG and APRW have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFG or APRW?

BUFG has higher volatility (2.28%) compared to APRW (1.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFG dropped -17.62% vs APRW's -9.61%.

Which ETF is better, BUFG or APRW?

On 3-year performance, BUFG leads with 13.85% vs 9.95% for APRW. On fees, APRW is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, APRW has been the lower-risk option at 1.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFG or APRW?

Over the 3-year period, BUFG has performed better with a 13.85% return vs 9.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFG or APRW?

APRW is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for BUFG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BUFG or APRW?

BUFG and APRW have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BUFG and APRW?

They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Allianz. Their fees differ too: 1.05% for BUFG and 0.74% for APRW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

APRW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.66 vs 2.28), 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.