BUFG vs. XMAR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BUFG (FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF) and XMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds from FT Vest. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BUFG returned 14.30%/yr vs 11.18%/yr for XMAR. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BUFG charges 1.05%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for XMAR.

Performance

BUFG vs. XMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR). 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 6.40% return and XMAR slightly higher at 6.65%.

BUFG

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

XMAR

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 1.37%
• YTD: 6.65%
• 6M: 7.38%
• 1Y: 12.89%
• 3Y*: 11.18%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFG vs. XMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BUFG FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF	6.40%	12.33%	15.13%	15.28%
XMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March	6.65%	10.30%	10.10%	10.30%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFG and XMAR 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	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2023	0.78

The correlation between BUFG and XMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

BUFG vs. XMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BUFG	XMAR
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

BUFG vs. XMAR — 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

XMAR

XMAR Risk / Return Rank: 97
XMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
XMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
XMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 98
XMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
XMAR 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. XMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR). 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	XMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.31	4.31	-2.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.34	7.46	-4.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	2.20	-0.75
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.07	8.76	-5.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.15	66.63	-50.49
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. XMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFG Sharpe Ratio is 2.31, which is lower than the XMAR Sharpe Ratio of 4.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFG and XMAR, 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	XMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.31	4.31	-2.00
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.74	2.13	-1.39

Drawdowns

BUFG vs. XMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFG drawdown since its inception was -17.62%, which is greater than XMAR's maximum drawdown of -7.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFG and XMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFG	XMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.62%	-7.29%	-10.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.74%	-1.48%	-4.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.20%	-7.29%	-5.91%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.30%	-0.16%	-0.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.62%	-0.30%	-3.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.09%	0.19%	+0.90%

Volatility

BUFG vs. XMAR - Volatility Comparison

FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG) has a higher volatility of 1.20% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) at 0.58%. This indicates that BUFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFG	XMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.20%	0.58%	+0.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.82%	2.40%	+3.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.64%	3.01%	+4.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.84%	5.55%	+6.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.84%	5.55%	+6.29%

BUFG vs. XMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFG has a 1.05% expense ratio, which is higher than XMAR's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFG vs. XMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFG nor XMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFG and XMAR in my portfolio?

BUFG and XMAR 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, BUFG or XMAR?

BUFG has higher volatility (1.20%) compared to XMAR (0.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFG dropped -17.62% vs XMAR's -7.29%.

Which ETF is better, BUFG or XMAR?

On 3-year performance, BUFG leads with 14.30% vs 11.18% for XMAR. On fees, XMAR is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, XMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFG or XMAR?

Over the 3-year period, BUFG has performed better with a 14.30% return vs 11.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFG or XMAR?

XMAR is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for BUFG.

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

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

What is the main difference between BUFG and XMAR?

Their fees differ too: 1.05% for BUFG and 0.85% for XMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.31 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.