BUFG vs. QFLR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BUFG (FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF) and QFLR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFG is a Options Trading fund actively managed by FT Vest, while QFLR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Innovator. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BUFG returned 17.53% vs 26.98% for QFLR. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BUFG charges 1.05%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for QFLR.

Performance

BUFG vs. QFLR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG) 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, BUFG achieves a 6.40% return, which is significantly lower than QFLR's 6.90% return.

BUFG

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: 2.34%
• YTD: 6.40%
• 6M: 6.86%
• 1Y: 17.53%
• 3Y*: 14.30%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QFLR

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 3.99%
• YTD: 6.90%
• 6M: 5.88%
• 1Y: 26.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFG vs. QFLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BUFG FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF	6.40%	12.33%	13.27%
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	6.90%	17.27%	16.64%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFG and QFLR is 0.84, 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	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 26, 2024	0.82

The correlation between BUFG and QFLR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

BUFG vs. QFLR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BUFG	QFLR
Technology	36.2%	50.8%
Financial Services	11.9%	0.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	18.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	12.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	3.2%
Industrials	8.1%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	9.2%
Energy	3.5%	1.1%
Utilities	2.3%	1.5%
Real Estate	1.9%	-
Basic Materials	1.8%	0.0%

Return for Risk

BUFG vs. QFLR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFG

BUFG Risk / Return Rank: 73
BUFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
BUFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
BUFG Omega Ratio Rank: 76
BUFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
BUFG Martin Ratio Rank: 81

QFLR

QFLR Risk / Return Rank: 74
QFLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QFLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
QFLR Omega Ratio Rank: 74
QFLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
QFLR Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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. QFLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG) 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.

	BUFG	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.31	2.41	-0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.34	3.26	+0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.44	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.07	3.56	-0.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.15	15.19	+0.96
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUFG vs. QFLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFG Sharpe Ratio is 2.31, which is comparable to the QFLR Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFG 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BUFG	QFLR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.31	2.41	-0.10
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.74	1.40	-0.66

Drawdowns

BUFG vs. QFLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFG drawdown since its inception was -17.62%, which is greater than QFLR's maximum drawdown of -13.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFG and QFLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFG	QFLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.62%	-13.97%	-3.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.74%	-7.61%	+1.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.20%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.30%	-0.48%	+0.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.62%	-2.50%	-1.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.09%	1.78%	-0.69%

Volatility

BUFG vs. QFLR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG) is 1.20%, while Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) has a volatility of 2.53%. This indicates that BUFG 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

	BUFG	QFLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.20%	2.53%	-1.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.82%	8.05%	-2.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.64%	11.28%	-3.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.84%	12.62%	-0.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.84%	12.62%	-0.78%

BUFG vs. QFLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFG has a 1.05% expense ratio, which is higher than QFLR's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFG vs. QFLR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFG nor QFLR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BUFG FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth 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 BUFG and QFLR in my portfolio?

BUFG and QFLR have a correlation of 0.84, 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 QFLR?

QFLR has higher volatility (2.53%) compared to BUFG (1.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFG dropped -17.62% vs QFLR's -13.97%.

Which ETF is better, BUFG or QFLR?

On 1-year performance, QFLR leads with 26.98% vs 17.53% for BUFG. On fees, QFLR is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, BUFG has been the lower-risk option at 1.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFG or QFLR?

Over the 1-year period, QFLR has performed better with a 26.98% return vs 17.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFG or QFLR?

QFLR is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for BUFG.

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

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

What is the main difference between BUFG and QFLR?

BUFG is categorized as Options Trading, while QFLR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 1.05% for BUFG and 0.89% for QFLR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QFLR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 vs 2.31), 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.