BUFM vs. PMJN
BUFM (AB Moderate Buffer ETF) and PMJN (PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - June) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BUFM returned 12.12% vs 6.03% for PMJN. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BUFM charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PMJN.
Performance
BUFM vs. PMJN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BUFM achieves a 3.49% return, which is significantly higher than PMJN's 2.07% return.
BUFM
- 1D
- -0.10%
- 1M
- 0.30%
- YTD
- 3.49%
- 6M
- 3.11%
- 1Y
- 12.12%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PMJN
- 1D
- -0.08%
- 1M
- -0.22%
- YTD
- 2.07%
- 6M
- 2.13%
- 1Y
- 6.03%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BUFM vs. PMJN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BUFM AB Moderate Buffer ETF | 3.49% | 9.07% |
PMJN PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - June | 2.07% | 4.26% |
Correlation
The correlation between BUFM and PMJN 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 2, 2025 | 0.82 |
The correlation between BUFM and PMJN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BUFM vs. PMJN — Risk / Return Rank
BUFM
PMJN
BUFM vs. PMJN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFM) and PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - June (PMJN). 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.
| BUFM | PMJN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.15 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.18 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | 1.78 | -0.40 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.99 | 5.27 | -2.28 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.90 | 30.32 | -19.42 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BUFM vs. PMJN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BUFM drawdown since its inception was -9.43%, which is greater than PMJN's maximum drawdown of -1.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFM and PMJN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BUFM | PMJN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -9.43% | -1.15% | -8.28% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.07% | -1.15% | -2.92% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.49% | -0.37% | -0.12% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.98% | -0.09% | -0.89% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.11% | 0.20% | +0.91% |
Volatility
BUFM vs. PMJN - Volatility Comparison
AB Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFM) has a higher volatility of 2.10% compared to PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - June (PMJN) at 0.86%. This indicates that BUFM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PMJN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BUFM | PMJN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.10% | 0.86% | +1.24% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.63% | 1.64% | +2.99% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.03% | 1.91% | +4.12% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.41% | 1.89% | +7.52% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.41% | 1.89% | +7.52% |
BUFM vs. PMJN - Expense Ratio Comparison
BUFM has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than PMJN's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
BUFM vs. PMJN - Dividend Comparison
Neither BUFM nor PMJN has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
BUFM and PMJN 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.
BUFM has higher volatility (2.10%) compared to PMJN (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFM dropped -9.43% vs PMJN's -1.15%.
On 1-year performance, BUFM leads with 12.12% vs 6.03% for PMJN. On fees, PMJN is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PMJN has been the lower-risk option at 0.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, BUFM has performed better with a 12.12% return vs 6.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PMJN is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for BUFM.
BUFM and PMJN have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: AllianceBernstein and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for BUFM and 0.50% for PMJN.
PMJN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.17 vs 2.02), 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.
Find the right allocation for BUFM and PMJN
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer