DAPR vs. FFEB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DAPR (FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - April) and FFEB (FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February) are both Defined Outcome funds from FT Vest. DAPR is passively managed, while FFEB is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, DAPR returned 6.20%/yr vs 11.09%/yr for FFEB. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.85% expense ratio.

Performance

DAPR vs. FFEB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - April (DAPR) and FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February (FFEB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DAPR achieves a 4.04% return, which is significantly lower than FFEB's 7.65% return.

DAPR

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 1.93%
• YTD: 4.04%
• 6M: 4.78%
• 1Y: 10.07%
• 3Y*: 10.83%
• 5Y*: 6.20%
• 10Y*: —

FFEB

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: 2.45%
• YTD: 7.65%
• 6M: 8.55%
• 1Y: 19.32%
• 3Y*: 16.35%
• 5Y*: 11.09%
• 10Y*: —

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

DAPR vs. FFEB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DAPR FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - April	4.04%	5.74%	14.99%	9.84%	-6.84%	5.34%
FFEB FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February	7.65%	13.76%	16.64%	19.95%	-7.51%	8.67%

Correlation

The correlation between DAPR and FFEB is 0.79, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 20, 2021	0.89

The correlation between DAPR and FFEB shifts across timeframes, from 0.79 (1 year) to 0.89 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

DAPR vs. FFEB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DAPR	FFEB
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

DAPR vs. FFEB — Risk / Return Rank

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

DAPR

DAPR Risk / Return Rank: 96
DAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
DAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
DAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
DAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
DAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

FFEB

FFEB Risk / Return Rank: 82
FFEB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
FFEB Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
FFEB Omega Ratio Rank: 88
FFEB Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
FFEB Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

DAPR vs. FFEB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - April (DAPR) and FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February (FFEB). 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.

	DAPR	FFEB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.66	2.73	+0.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.98	3.94	+2.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.81	1.55	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	11.99	3.39	+8.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	59.41	18.01	+41.39
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DAPR vs. FFEB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DAPR Sharpe Ratio is 3.66, which is higher than the FFEB Sharpe Ratio of 2.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DAPR and FFEB, 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

	DAPR	FFEB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.66	2.73	+0.93
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.76	1.03	-0.27
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.77	0.87	-0.10

Drawdowns

DAPR vs. FFEB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DAPR drawdown since its inception was -10.51%, smaller than the maximum FFEB drawdown of -22.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DAPR and FFEB.

Drawdown Indicators

	DAPR	FFEB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.51%	-22.81%	+12.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.84%	-5.73%	+4.89%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.51%	-11.89%	+1.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-10.51%	-13.85%	+3.34%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.12%	-0.30%	+0.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.30%	-2.40%	+0.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.17%	1.08%	-0.91%

Volatility

DAPR vs. FFEB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - April (DAPR) is 1.03%, while FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February (FFEB) has a volatility of 1.24%. This indicates that DAPR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FFEB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DAPR	FFEB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.03%	1.24%	-0.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.88%	5.56%	-3.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.78%	7.12%	-4.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.21%	10.81%	-2.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.16%	13.75%	-5.59%

DAPR vs. FFEB - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both DAPR and FFEB have an expense ratio of 0.85%.

Dividends

DAPR vs. FFEB - Dividend Comparison

Neither DAPR nor FFEB has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DAPR and FFEB in my portfolio?

DAPR and FFEB have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DAPR or FFEB?

FFEB has higher volatility (1.24%) compared to DAPR (1.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DAPR dropped -10.51% vs FFEB's -22.81%.

Which ETF is better, DAPR or FFEB?

On 5-year performance, FFEB leads with 11.09% vs 6.20% for DAPR. Both ETFs have the same 0.85% expense ratio. On volatility, DAPR has been the lower-risk option at 1.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DAPR or FFEB?

Over the 5-year period, FFEB has performed better with a 11.09% return vs 6.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DAPR or FFEB?

DAPR and FFEB have the same expense ratio: 0.85% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, DAPR or FFEB?

DAPR and FFEB have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DAPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.66 vs 2.73), 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.