BUFR vs. CBON
BUFR (FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF) and CBON (VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFR is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust, while CBON is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index. BUFR is actively managed, while CBON is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BUFR returned 9.55%/yr vs 2.11%/yr for CBON. Their 0.16 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. BUFR charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CBON.
Performance
BUFR vs. CBON - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BUFR achieves a 6.48% return, which is significantly higher than CBON's 5.29% return.
BUFR
- 1D
- 0.03%
- 1M
- 0.77%
- 6M
- 5.68%
- YTD
- 6.48%
- 1Y
- 12.42%
- 3Y*
- 12.65%
- 5Y*
- 9.55%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 10.49%
CBON
- 1D
- -0.25%
- 1M
- 0.35%
- 6M
- 4.74%
- YTD
- 5.29%
- 1Y
- 8.54%
- 3Y*
- 4.82%
- 5Y*
- 2.11%
- 10Y*
- 3.01%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.44%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $41.80M | $42.66M | $45.08M | |
| $207.99K | $136.05K | $172.83K |
BUFR vs. CBON - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BUFR FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF | 6.48% | 12.44% | 14.68% | 19.63% | -7.57% | 11.88% | 6.60% |
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF | 5.29% | 5.46% | 1.85% | 2.92% | -7.99% | 5.93% | 8.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between BUFR and CBON is 0.23, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.23 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.15 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.18 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 11, 2020 | 0.16 |
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
BUFR vs. CBON — Risk / Return Rank
BUFR
CBON
BUFR vs. CBON - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF (BUFR) and VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON). 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.
| BUFR | CBON | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.49 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.90 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.37 | 1.47 | -0.09 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.78 | 6.42 | -3.65 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 14.53 | 24.44 | -9.91 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BUFR vs. CBON - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BUFR drawdown since its inception was -13.73%, roughly equal to the maximum CBON drawdown of -14.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFR and CBON.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BUFR | CBON | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -13.73% | -14.13% | +0.40% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.61% | -1.34% | -3.27% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -12.81% | -4.56% | -8.25% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -13.73% | -14.13% | +0.40% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -14.13% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.90% | -0.33% | -0.57% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.05% | -3.95% | +1.90% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.88% | 0.35% | +0.53% |
Volatility
BUFR vs. CBON - Volatility Comparison
FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF (BUFR) has a higher volatility of 1.58% compared to VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) at 1.06%. This indicates that BUFR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CBON based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BUFR | CBON | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.58% | 1.06% | +0.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.26% | 2.72% | +2.54% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.66% | 3.57% | +3.09% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 10.47% | 4.90% | +5.57% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 10.16% | 5.55% | +4.61% |
BUFR vs. CBON - Expense Ratio Comparison
BUFR has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than CBON's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
BUFR vs. CBON - Dividend Comparison
BUFR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CBON's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.51%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BUFR FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF | 1.51% | 1.66% | 2.15% | 3.01% | 2.70% | 3.05% | 2.87% | 3.87% | 3.39% | 3.33% | 3.25% | 2.78% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BUFR and CBON have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BUFR has higher volatility (1.58%) compared to CBON (1.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFR dropped -13.73% vs CBON's -14.13%.
On 5-year performance, BUFR leads with 9.55% vs 2.11% for CBON. On fees, CBON is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, CBON has been the lower-risk option at 1.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, BUFR has performed better with a 9.55% return vs 2.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CBON is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFR.
CBON has the higher dividend yield at 1.51%, compared with 0.00% for BUFR.
BUFR is categorized as Defined Outcome, while CBON is Emerging Markets Bonds. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BUFR and 0.50% for CBON.
CBON currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 vs 1.92), 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 BUFR and CBON
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