BUFR vs. JULB

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

BUFR (FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF) and JULB (Aptus July Buffer ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Their 0.97 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. BUFR charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for JULB.

Performance

BUFR vs. JULB - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUFR achieves a 7.33% return, which is significantly lower than JULB's 8.08% return.

BUFR

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: 0.60%
• 6M: 6.43%
• YTD: 7.33%
• 1Y: 14.83%
• 3Y*: 12.87%
• 5Y*: 9.76%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.60%

JULB

• 1D: 0.54%
• 1M: 0.57%
• 6M: 7.15%
• YTD: 8.08%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BUFR FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF	$38.72M	$41.24M	$45.38M
JULB Aptus July Buffer ETF	$122.17K	$181.25K	$221.75K

BUFR vs. JULB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BUFR FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF	7.33%	2.76%
JULB Aptus July Buffer ETF	8.08%	2.44%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFR and JULB is 0.97 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2025	0.97

Return for Risk

BUFR vs. JULB — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BUFR

BUFR Risk / Return Rank: 87
BUFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
BUFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
BUFR Omega Ratio Rank: 88
BUFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
BUFR Martin Ratio Rank: 92

JULB

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BUFR vs. JULB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF (BUFR) and Aptus July Buffer ETF (JULB). 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	JULB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.94	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.00	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.68	—	—

Drawdowns

BUFR vs. JULB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFR drawdown since its inception was -13.73%, which is greater than JULB's maximum drawdown of -5.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFR and JULB.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFR	JULB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.73%	-5.24%	-8.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.61%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.81%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-13.73%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.11%	-0.20%	+0.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.05%	-0.78%	-1.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.88%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BUFR	JULB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.90%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.41%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.78%	6.81%	-0.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.48%	6.81%	+3.67%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.16%	6.81%	+3.35%

BUFR vs. JULB - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFR has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than JULB's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFR vs. JULB - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFR nor JULB has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFR and JULB in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.97, BUFR and JULB 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 ETF is better, BUFR or JULB?

On fees, JULB is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFR or JULB?

JULB is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFR.

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

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

What is the main difference between BUFR and JULB?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Aptus. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BUFR and 0.25% for JULB.