PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
DECM vs. BUFQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

DECM vs. BUFQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - December (DECM) and FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DECM achieves a 2.63% return, which is significantly lower than BUFQ's 9.57% return.


DECM

1D
0.03%
1M
0.85%
YTD
2.63%
6M
3.26%
1Y
8.30%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

BUFQ

1D
0.03%
1M
2.67%
YTD
9.57%
6M
10.28%
1Y
22.53%
3Y*
17.01%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

DECM vs. BUFQ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024
DECM
FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - December
2.63%6.85%-0.23%
BUFQ
FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF
9.57%14.03%-1.13%

Correlation

The correlation between DECM and BUFQ is 0.84, 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

0.84

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 24, 2024

0.83

The correlation between DECM and BUFQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.84 - 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

DECM vs. BUFQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

DECM
DECM Risk / Return Rank: 9393
Overall Rank
DECM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DECM Sortino Ratio Rank: 9696
Sortino Ratio Rank
DECM Omega Ratio Rank: 9696
Omega Ratio Rank
DECM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
DECM Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank

BUFQ
BUFQ Risk / Return Rank: 8686
Overall Rank
BUFQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BUFQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
BUFQ Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
BUFQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
BUFQ Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

DECM vs. BUFQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - December (DECM) and FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ). 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.


DECMBUFQDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

3.59

2.72

+0.86

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

5.70

4.03

+1.67

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.81

1.55

+0.27

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

4.92

4.25

+0.67

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

25.76

21.52

+4.25

DECM vs. BUFQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DECM Sharpe Ratio is 3.59, which is higher than the BUFQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DECM and BUFQ, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


DECMBUFQDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.59

2.72

+0.86

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

2.20

1.43

+0.77

Drawdowns

DECM vs. BUFQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DECM drawdown since its inception was -3.00%, smaller than the maximum BUFQ drawdown of -15.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DECM and BUFQ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


DECMBUFQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-3.00%

-15.74%

+12.74%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-1.71%

-5.39%

+3.68%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.74%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.37%

-2.31%

+1.94%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.33%

1.06%

-0.73%

Volatility

DECM vs. BUFQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - December (DECM) is 0.34%, while FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ) has a volatility of 1.17%. This indicates that DECM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUFQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


DECMBUFQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.34%

1.17%

-0.83%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

1.78%

6.42%

-4.64%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.33%

8.31%

-5.98%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

2.97%

13.35%

-10.38%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

2.97%

13.35%

-10.38%

DECM vs. BUFQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

DECM has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFQ's 1.10% expense ratio.


Dividends

DECM vs. BUFQ - Dividend Comparison

Neither DECM nor BUFQ has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


DECM and BUFQ have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BUFQ has higher volatility (1.17%) compared to DECM (0.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DECM dropped -3.00% vs BUFQ's -15.74%.

On 1-year performance, BUFQ leads with 22.53% vs 8.30% for DECM. On fees, DECM is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, DECM has been the lower-risk option at 0.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, BUFQ has performed better with a 22.53% return vs 8.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

DECM is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for BUFQ.

DECM and BUFQ have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

DECM is categorized as Defined Outcome, while BUFQ is Nasdaq-100. DECM tracks S&P 500, while BUFQ tracks NASDAQ 100 Index - USD. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DECM and 1.10% for BUFQ.

DECM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.59 vs 2.72), 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 DECM and BUFQ

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