BUFH vs. BLUC

Last updated Jul 11, 2026

BUFH (FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF) and BLUC (Bluemonte Large Cap Core ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFH is a Defined Outcome fund managed by First Trust, while BLUC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund managed by Bluemonte. Over the past year, BUFH returned 6.24% vs 20.93% for BLUC. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BUFH charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for BLUC.

Performance

BUFH vs. BLUC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH) and Bluemonte Large Cap Core ETF (BLUC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUFH achieves a 2.88% return, which is significantly lower than BLUC's 10.06% return.

BUFH

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: 0.56%
• 6M: 2.66%
• YTD: 2.88%
• 1Y: 6.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BLUC

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: 2.18%
• 6M: 8.53%
• YTD: 10.06%
• 1Y: 20.93%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFH vs. BLUC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF	2.88%	3.81%
BLUC Bluemonte Large Cap Core ETF	10.06%	12.80%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFH and BLUC is 0.79, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2025	0.77

The correlation between BUFH and BLUC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BUFH vs. BLUC — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFH

BUFH Risk / Return Rank: 93
BUFH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
BUFH Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
BUFH Omega Ratio Rank: 95
BUFH Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
BUFH Martin Ratio Rank: 93

BLUC

BLUC Risk / Return Rank: 54
BLUC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
BLUC Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
BLUC Omega Ratio Rank: 55
BLUC Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
BLUC Martin Ratio Rank: 55

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.

BUFH vs. BLUC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH) and Bluemonte Large Cap Core ETF (BLUC). 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.

	BUFH	BLUC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.64	1.52	+1.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.15	2.11	+2.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.27	+0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.09	1.94	+2.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.22	7.67	+11.55

BUFH vs. BLUC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFH Sharpe Ratio is 2.64, which is higher than the BLUC Sharpe Ratio of 1.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFH and BLUC, 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

BUFH vs. BLUC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFH drawdown since its inception was -1.53%, smaller than the maximum BLUC drawdown of -10.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFH and BLUC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFH	BLUC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.53%	-10.69%	+9.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.53%	-10.69%	+9.16%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.61%	+1.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.17%	-1.69%	+1.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.33%	2.70%	-2.37%

Volatility

BUFH vs. BLUC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH) is 0.60%, while Bluemonte Large Cap Core ETF (BLUC) has a volatility of 4.71%. This indicates that BUFH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BLUC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFH	BLUC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.60%	4.71%	-4.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.97%	11.02%	-9.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.37%	13.63%	-11.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.34%	13.46%	-11.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.34%	13.46%	-11.12%

BUFH vs. BLUC - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFH has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than BLUC's 0.23% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFH vs. BLUC - Dividend Comparison

BUFH has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BLUC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.62%.

Position	TTM	2025
BLUC Bluemonte Large Cap Core ETF	0.62%	0.46%
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFH and BLUC in my portfolio?

BUFH and BLUC have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFH or BLUC?

BLUC has higher volatility (4.71%) compared to BUFH (0.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFH dropped -1.53% vs BLUC's -10.69%.

Which ETF is better, BUFH or BLUC?

On 1-year performance, BLUC leads with 20.93% vs 6.24% for BUFH. On fees, BLUC is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, BUFH has been the lower-risk option at 0.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFH or BLUC?

Over the 1-year period, BLUC has performed better with a 20.93% return vs 6.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFH or BLUC?

BLUC is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFH.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BUFH or BLUC?

BLUC has the higher dividend yield at 0.62%, compared with 0.00% for BUFH.

What is the main difference between BUFH and BLUC?

BUFH is categorized as Defined Outcome, while BLUC is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Bluemonte. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BUFH and 0.23% for BLUC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BUFH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.64 vs 1.52), 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.