BUFZ vs. FSEP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BUFZ (FT Cboe Vest Laddered Moderate Buffer ETF) and FSEP (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - September) are both Options Trading funds from FT Vest. BUFZ is actively managed, while FSEP is passively managed. Over the past year, BUFZ returned 14.14% vs 17.62% for FSEP. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BUFZ charges 1.05%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for FSEP.

Performance

BUFZ vs. FSEP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest Laddered Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFZ) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - September (FSEP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUFZ achieves a 4.98% return, which is significantly lower than FSEP's 6.56% return.

BUFZ

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 1.61%
• YTD: 4.98%
• 6M: 5.69%
• 1Y: 14.14%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FSEP

• 1D: -0.22%
• 1M: 2.58%
• YTD: 6.56%
• 6M: 7.03%
• 1Y: 17.62%
• 3Y*: 14.44%
• 5Y*: 10.07%
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFZ vs. FSEP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BUFZ FT Cboe Vest Laddered Moderate Buffer ETF	4.98%	11.05%	11.48%	8.75%
FSEP FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - September	6.56%	12.83%	13.56%	11.13%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFZ and FSEP is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2023	0.90

The correlation between BUFZ and FSEP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

BUFZ vs. FSEP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BUFZ	FSEP
Technology	36.2%	36.2%
Financial Services	11.9%	11.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	10.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	8.4%
Industrials	8.1%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.9%
Energy	3.5%	3.5%
Utilities	2.3%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.8%

Return for Risk

BUFZ vs. FSEP — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFZ

BUFZ Risk / Return Rank: 86
BUFZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
BUFZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
BUFZ Omega Ratio Rank: 89
BUFZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
BUFZ Martin Ratio Rank: 91

FSEP

FSEP Risk / Return Rank: 74
FSEP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
FSEP Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
FSEP Omega Ratio Rank: 77
FSEP Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
FSEP Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

BUFZ vs. FSEP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest Laddered Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFZ) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - September (FSEP). 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.

	BUFZ	FSEP	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.73	2.36	+0.38
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.15	3.40	+0.75
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.47	+0.10
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.05	3.15	+0.90
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	21.94	15.90	+6.04
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUFZ vs. FSEP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.73, which is comparable to the FSEP Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFZ and FSEP, 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

	BUFZ	FSEP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.73	2.36	+0.38
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.94	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.96	1.10	+0.86

Drawdowns

BUFZ vs. FSEP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFZ drawdown since its inception was -10.14%, smaller than the maximum FSEP drawdown of -13.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFZ and FSEP.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFZ	FSEP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.14%	-13.79%	+3.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.51%	-5.62%	+2.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.37%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-13.79%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.21%	-0.22%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.64%	-2.14%	+1.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.65%	1.11%	-0.46%

Volatility

BUFZ vs. FSEP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest Laddered Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFZ) is 0.77%, while FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - September (FSEP) has a volatility of 1.19%. This indicates that BUFZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FSEP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFZ	FSEP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.77%	1.19%	-0.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.02%	5.79%	-1.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.21%	7.52%	-2.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.33%	10.79%	-3.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.33%	10.54%	-3.21%

BUFZ vs. FSEP - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFZ has a 1.05% expense ratio, which is higher than FSEP's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFZ vs. FSEP - Dividend Comparison

Neither BUFZ nor FSEP has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFZ and FSEP in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, BUFZ and FSEP 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, BUFZ or FSEP?

FSEP has higher volatility (1.19%) compared to BUFZ (0.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFZ dropped -10.14% vs FSEP's -13.79%.

Which ETF is better, BUFZ or FSEP?

On 1-year performance, FSEP leads with 17.62% vs 14.14% for BUFZ. On fees, FSEP is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, BUFZ has been the lower-risk option at 0.77%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFZ or FSEP?

Over the 1-year period, FSEP has performed better with a 17.62% return vs 14.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFZ or FSEP?

FSEP is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for BUFZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BUFZ or FSEP?

BUFZ and FSEP have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BUFZ and FSEP?

Their fees differ too: 1.05% for BUFZ and 0.85% for FSEP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BUFZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 vs 2.36), 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.