PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
BUFS vs. BUFP
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

BUFS vs. BUFP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Laddered Small Cap Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFS) and PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUFS achieves a 10.29% return, which is significantly higher than BUFP's 7.65% return.


BUFS

1D
0.52%
1M
0.60%
6M
7.35%
YTD
10.29%
1Y
20.19%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
ALL TIME*
11.27%

BUFP

1D
0.50%
1M
1.19%
6M
6.45%
YTD
7.65%
1Y
14.81%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
ALL TIME*
12.74%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$1.05M$1.21M$1.54M
$1.11M$1.20M$981.93K

BUFS vs. BUFP - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024
BUFS
FT Vest Laddered Small Cap Moderate Buffer ETF
10.29%7.08%6.69%
BUFP
PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF
7.65%12.92%6.30%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFS and BUFP is 0.74, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.74

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 13, 2024

0.75

The correlation between BUFS and BUFP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

BUFS vs. BUFP — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFS
BUFS Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
BUFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8989
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BUFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 9191
Sortino Ratio Rank
BUFS Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
BUFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
BUFS Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank

BUFP
BUFP Risk / Return Rank: 9090
Overall Rank
BUFP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BUFP Sortino Ratio Rank: 9292
Sortino Ratio Rank
BUFP Omega Ratio Rank: 9292
Omega Ratio Rank
BUFP Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
BUFP Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

BUFS vs. BUFP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Laddered Small Cap Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFS) and PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP). 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.


BUFSBUFPDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.06

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.06

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.46

1.47

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.33

3.37

+0.96

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

18.23

18.03

+0.20

BUFS vs. BUFP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFS Sharpe Ratio is 2.38, which is comparable to the BUFP Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFS and BUFP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

BUFS vs. BUFP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFS drawdown since its inception was -15.03%, which is greater than BUFP's maximum drawdown of -11.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFS and BUFP.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


BUFSBUFPDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-15.03%

-11.98%

-3.05%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.68%

-4.41%

-0.27%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.26%

-0.97%

-1.29%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.11%

0.82%

+0.29%

Volatility

BUFS vs. BUFP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Laddered Small Cap Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFS) is 1.41%, while PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP) has a volatility of 1.70%. This indicates that BUFS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUFP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


BUFSBUFPDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.41%

1.70%

-0.29%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.63%

5.24%

+0.39%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.55%

6.44%

+2.11%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

10.91%

9.30%

+1.61%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.91%

9.30%

+1.61%

BUFS vs. BUFP - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFS has a 1.01% expense ratio, which is higher than BUFP's 0.50% expense ratio.


Dividends

BUFS vs. BUFP - Dividend Comparison

BUFS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BUFP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%.


PositionTTM20252024
BUFP
PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF
0.01%0.01%0.02%
BUFS
FT Vest Laddered Small Cap Moderate Buffer ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


BUFS and BUFP have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BUFP has higher volatility (1.70%) compared to BUFS (1.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFS dropped -15.03% vs BUFP's -11.98%.

On 1-year performance, BUFS leads with 20.19% vs 14.81% for BUFP. On fees, BUFP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, BUFS has been the lower-risk option at 1.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, BUFS has performed better with a 20.19% return vs 14.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BUFP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 1.01% for BUFS.

BUFP has the higher dividend yield at 0.01%, compared with 0.00% for BUFS.

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 1.01% for BUFS and 0.50% for BUFP.

BUFS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.38 vs 2.32), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BUFS and BUFP

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