BUFR vs. BUFG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BUFR (FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF) and BUFG (FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFR is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust, while BUFG is a Options Trading fund actively managed by FT Vest. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BUFR returned 14.50%/yr vs 14.30%/yr for BUFG. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BUFR charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.05%/yr for BUFG.

Performance

BUFR vs. BUFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF (BUFR) and FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with BUFR having a 6.42% return and BUFG slightly lower at 6.40%.

BUFR

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 2.16%
• YTD: 6.42%
• 6M: 7.11%
• 1Y: 17.61%
• 3Y*: 14.50%
• 5Y*: 9.98%
• 10Y*: —

BUFG

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

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

BUFR vs. BUFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BUFR FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF	6.42%	12.44%	14.68%	19.63%	-7.57%	1.99%
BUFG FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF	6.40%	12.33%	15.13%	18.49%	-11.61%	1.80%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFR and BUFG is 0.95 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 28, 2021	0.94

The correlation between BUFR and BUFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

BUFR vs. BUFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BUFR	BUFG
Technology	35.8%	36.2%
Financial Services	11.8%	11.9%
Communication Services	11.3%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.2%	10.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	8.4%
Industrials	7.9%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.9%
Energy	3.5%	3.5%
Utilities	2.4%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.8%

Return for Risk

BUFR vs. BUFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFR

BUFR Risk / Return Rank: 84
BUFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
BUFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
BUFR Omega Ratio Rank: 87
BUFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
BUFR Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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

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.

BUFR vs. BUFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF (BUFR) and FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG). 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.

	BUFR	BUFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.71	2.31	+0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.95	3.34	+0.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	1.45	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.84	3.07	+0.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.78	16.15	+4.63
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUFR vs. BUFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFR Sharpe Ratio is 2.71, which is comparable to the BUFG Sharpe Ratio of 2.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFR and BUFG, 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

	BUFR	BUFG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.71	2.31	+0.40
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.07	0.74	+0.33

Drawdowns

BUFR vs. BUFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFR drawdown since its inception was -13.73%, smaller than the maximum BUFG drawdown of -17.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFR and BUFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFR	BUFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.73%	-17.62%	+3.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.61%	-5.74%	+1.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.81%	-13.20%	+0.39%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-13.73%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.21%	-0.30%	+0.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.09%	-3.62%	+1.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.85%	1.09%	-0.24%

Volatility

BUFR vs. BUFG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF (BUFR) is 1.03%, while FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG) has a volatility of 1.20%. This indicates that BUFR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFR	BUFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.03%	1.20%	-0.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.95%	5.82%	-0.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.53%	7.64%	-1.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.44%	11.84%	-1.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.23%	11.84%	-1.61%

BUFR vs. BUFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFR has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFG's 1.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFR vs. BUFG - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFR nor BUFG has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFR and BUFG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, BUFR and BUFG 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, BUFR or BUFG?

BUFG has higher volatility (1.20%) compared to BUFR (1.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFR dropped -13.73% vs BUFG's -17.62%.

Which ETF is better, BUFR or BUFG?

On 3-year performance, BUFR leads with 14.50% vs 14.30% for BUFG. On fees, BUFR is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, BUFR has been the lower-risk option at 1.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFR or BUFG?

Over the 3-year period, BUFR has performed better with a 14.50% return vs 14.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFR or BUFG?

BUFR is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for BUFG.

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

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

What is the main difference between BUFR and BUFG?

BUFR is categorized as Defined Outcome, while BUFG is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BUFR and 1.05% for BUFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BUFR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 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.