BUFM vs. QB

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

BUFM (AB Moderate Buffer ETF) and QB (ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. BUFM is actively managed, while QB is passively managed. Over the past year, BUFM returned 10.62% vs 18.61% for QB. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BUFM charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for QB.

Performance

BUFM vs. QB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFM) and ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUFM achieves a 4.01% return, which is significantly lower than QB's 12.42% return.

BUFM

• 1D: -0.31%
• 1M: 0.37%
• 6M: 3.16%
• YTD: 4.01%
• 1Y: 10.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QB

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 2.44%
• 6M: 11.41%
• YTD: 12.42%
• 1Y: 18.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFM vs. QB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BUFM AB Moderate Buffer ETF	4.01%	7.42%
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF	12.42%	6.10%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFM and QB is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025	0.65

The correlation between BUFM and QB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BUFM vs. QB — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFM

BUFM Risk / Return Rank: 67
BUFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
BUFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
BUFM Omega Ratio Rank: 68
BUFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
BUFM Martin Ratio Rank: 67

QB

QB Risk / Return Rank: 94
QB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QB Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
QB Omega Ratio Rank: 95
QB Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
QB Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

BUFM vs. QB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFM) and ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB). 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	QB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.75	2.66	-0.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	3.87	-1.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.63	-0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.62	5.38	-2.76
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.48	25.93	-16.46

BUFM vs. QB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFM Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is lower than the QB Sharpe Ratio of 2.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFM and QB, 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

BUFM vs. QB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFM drawdown since its inception was -9.43%, which is greater than QB's maximum drawdown of -3.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFM and QB.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFM	QB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.43%	-3.47%	-5.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.07%	-3.47%	-0.60%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.31%	-0.22%	-0.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.95%	-0.42%	-0.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.12%	0.72%	+0.40%

Volatility

BUFM vs. QB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AB Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFM) is 1.68%, while ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB) has a volatility of 2.71%. This indicates that BUFM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFM	QB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.68%	2.71%	-1.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.59%	5.83%	-1.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.10%	7.03%	-0.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.27%	6.91%	+2.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.27%	6.91%	+2.36%

BUFM vs. QB - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFM has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than QB's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFM vs. QB - Dividend Comparison

BUFM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.77%.

Position	TTM	2025
BUFM AB Moderate Buffer ETF	0.00%	0.00%
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF	0.77%	0.48%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFM and QB in my portfolio?

BUFM and QB have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFM or QB?

QB has higher volatility (2.71%) compared to BUFM (1.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFM dropped -9.43% vs QB's -3.47%.

Which ETF is better, BUFM or QB?

On 1-year performance, QB leads with 18.61% vs 10.62% for BUFM. On fees, QB is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, BUFM has been the lower-risk option at 1.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFM or QB?

Over the 1-year period, QB has performed better with a 18.61% return vs 10.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFM or QB?

QB is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for BUFM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BUFM or QB?

QB has the higher dividend yield at 0.77%, compared with 0.00% for BUFM.

What is the main difference between BUFM and QB?

They also come from different issuers: AllianceBernstein and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for BUFM and 0.58% for QB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.66 vs 1.75), 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.