BUFQ vs. QQMG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BUFQ (FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF) and QQMG (Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds - BUFQ tracks the NASDAQ 100 Index - USD while QQMG tracks the Nasdaq-100 ESG Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BUFQ returned 16.99%/yr vs 29.63%/yr for QQMG. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BUFQ charges 1.10%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for QQMG.

Performance

BUFQ vs. QQMG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ) and Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQMG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUFQ achieves a 9.53% return, which is significantly lower than QQMG's 21.86% return.

BUFQ

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 2.68%
• YTD: 9.53%
• 6M: 10.14%
• 1Y: 21.61%
• 3Y*: 16.99%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QQMG

• 1D: -0.41%
• 1M: 11.51%
• YTD: 21.86%
• 6M: 20.50%
• 1Y: 44.32%
• 3Y*: 29.63%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFQ vs. QQMG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BUFQ FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF	9.53%	14.03%	16.41%	35.51%	0.75%
QQMG Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF	21.86%	22.16%	25.66%	55.00%	0.29%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFQ and QQMG is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 17, 2022	0.95

The correlation between BUFQ and QQMG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

BUFQ vs. QQMG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BUFQ	QQMG
Technology	54.2%	62.1%
Communication Services	15.5%	13.0%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	11.5%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	6.0%
Healthcare	4.2%	3.5%
Industrials	2.8%	2.1%
Utilities	1.4%	0.2%
Basic Materials	1.2%	1.4%
Energy	0.6%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	0.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.1%

Return for Risk

BUFQ vs. QQMG — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFQ

BUFQ Risk / Return Rank: 84
BUFQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
BUFQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
BUFQ Omega Ratio Rank: 85
BUFQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
BUFQ Martin Ratio Rank: 89

QQMG

QQMG Risk / Return Rank: 74
QQMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
QQMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
QQMG Omega Ratio Rank: 74
QQMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
QQMG Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

BUFQ vs. QQMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ) and Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQMG). 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.

	BUFQ	QQMG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.62	2.66	-0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.88	3.43	+0.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	1.44	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.03	3.51	+0.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.34	13.08	+7.26
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUFQ vs. QQMG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFQ Sharpe Ratio is 2.62, which is comparable to the QQMG Sharpe Ratio of 2.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFQ and QQMG, 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

	BUFQ	QQMG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.62	2.66	-0.04
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.42	0.74	+0.69

Drawdowns

BUFQ vs. QQMG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFQ drawdown since its inception was -15.74%, smaller than the maximum QQMG drawdown of -35.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFQ and QQMG.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFQ	QQMG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.74%	-35.43%	+19.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.39%	-12.67%	+7.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.74%	-22.79%	+7.05%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-0.41%	+0.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.31%	-9.61%	+7.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.06%	3.40%	-2.34%

Volatility

BUFQ vs. QQMG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ) is 1.17%, while Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQMG) has a volatility of 4.76%. This indicates that BUFQ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFQ	QQMG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.17%	4.76%	-3.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.42%	12.90%	-6.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.31%	16.77%	-8.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.35%	23.60%	-10.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.35%	23.60%	-10.25%

BUFQ vs. QQMG - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFQ has a 1.10% expense ratio, which is higher than QQMG's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFQ vs. QQMG - Dividend Comparison

BUFQ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QQMG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.34%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BUFQ FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QQMG Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF	0.34%	0.41%	0.50%	0.60%	0.82%	0.08%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFQ and QQMG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, BUFQ and QQMG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, BUFQ or QQMG?

QQMG has higher volatility (4.76%) compared to BUFQ (1.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFQ dropped -15.74% vs QQMG's -35.43%.

Which ETF is better, BUFQ or QQMG?

On 3-year performance, QQMG leads with 29.63% vs 16.99% for BUFQ. On fees, QQMG is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, BUFQ has been the lower-risk option at 1.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFQ or QQMG?

Over the 3-year period, QQMG has performed better with a 29.63% return vs 16.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFQ or QQMG?

QQMG is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for BUFQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BUFQ or QQMG?

QQMG has the higher dividend yield at 0.34%, compared with 0.00% for BUFQ.

What is the main difference between BUFQ and QQMG?

BUFQ tracks NASDAQ 100 Index - USD, while QQMG tracks Nasdaq-100 ESG Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 1.10% for BUFQ and 0.20% for QQMG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQMG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.66 vs 2.62), 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.