CBON vs. BUFR
CBON (VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF) and BUFR (FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CBON is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index, while BUFR is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust. CBON is passively managed, while BUFR is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CBON returned 2.11%/yr vs 9.55%/yr for BUFR. Their 0.16 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. CBON charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BUFR.
Performance
CBON vs. BUFR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CBON achieves a 5.29% return, which is significantly lower than BUFR's 6.48% return.
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%
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%
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 |
CBON vs. BUFR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF | 5.29% | 5.46% | 1.85% | 2.92% | -7.99% | 5.93% | 8.21% |
BUFR FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF | 6.48% | 12.44% | 14.68% | 19.63% | -7.57% | 11.88% | 6.60% |
Correlation
The correlation between CBON and BUFR 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
CBON vs. BUFR — Risk / Return Rank
CBON
BUFR
CBON vs. BUFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) and FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF (BUFR). 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.
| CBON | BUFR | 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 | 1.47 | 1.37 | +0.09 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 6.42 | 2.78 | +3.65 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 24.44 | 14.53 | +9.91 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CBON vs. BUFR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CBON drawdown since its inception was -14.13%, roughly equal to the maximum BUFR drawdown of -13.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBON and BUFR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CBON | BUFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.13% | -13.73% | -0.40% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.34% | -4.61% | +3.27% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -4.56% | -12.81% | +8.25% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -14.13% | -13.73% | -0.40% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -14.13% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.33% | -0.90% | +0.57% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.95% | -2.05% | -1.90% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.35% | 0.88% | -0.53% |
Volatility
CBON vs. BUFR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) is 1.06%, while FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF (BUFR) has a volatility of 1.58%. This indicates that CBON experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CBON | BUFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.06% | 1.58% | -0.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.72% | 5.26% | -2.54% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.57% | 6.66% | -3.09% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.90% | 10.47% | -5.57% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.55% | 10.16% | -4.61% |
CBON vs. BUFR - Expense Ratio Comparison
CBON has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFR's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
CBON vs. BUFR - Dividend Comparison
CBON's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.51%, while BUFR has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| 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
CBON and BUFR 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, CBON dropped -14.13% vs BUFR's -13.73%.
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.
CBON is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while BUFR is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CBON and 0.95% for BUFR.
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 CBON and BUFR
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