DECT vs. FEBT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DECT (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Dec ETF) and FEBT (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF) are both Options Trading funds from Allianz. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, DECT returned 14.52%/yr vs 16.37%/yr for FEBT. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.74% expense ratio.

Performance

DECT vs. FEBT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Dec ETF (DECT) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DECT achieves a 7.16% return, which is significantly lower than FEBT's 7.90% return.

DECT

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 3.06%
• YTD: 7.16%
• 6M: 7.61%
• 1Y: 21.15%
• 3Y*: 14.52%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FEBT

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 2.78%
• YTD: 7.90%
• 6M: 8.78%
• 1Y: 20.34%
• 3Y*: 16.37%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

DECT vs. FEBT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
DECT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Dec ETF	7.16%	15.04%	11.86%	12.73%
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	7.90%	12.72%	17.29%	14.73%

Correlation

The correlation between DECT and FEBT is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2023	0.95

The correlation between DECT and FEBT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

DECT vs. FEBT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DECT	FEBT
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

DECT vs. FEBT — Risk / Return Rank

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

DECT

DECT Risk / Return Rank: 78
DECT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
DECT Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
DECT Omega Ratio Rank: 81
DECT Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
DECT Martin Ratio Rank: 83

FEBT

FEBT Risk / Return Rank: 81
FEBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
FEBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FEBT Omega Ratio Rank: 85
FEBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
FEBT Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

DECT vs. FEBT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Dec ETF (DECT) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT). 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.

	DECT	FEBT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.45	2.67	-0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.48	3.85	-0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.52	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.48	3.38	+0.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.66	17.26	-0.60
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DECT vs. FEBT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DECT Sharpe Ratio is 2.45, which is comparable to the FEBT Sharpe Ratio of 2.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DECT and FEBT, 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

	DECT	FEBT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.45	2.67	-0.22
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.36	1.64	-0.28

Drawdowns

DECT vs. FEBT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DECT drawdown since its inception was -13.26%, roughly equal to the maximum FEBT drawdown of -13.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DECT and FEBT.

Drawdown Indicators

	DECT	FEBT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.26%	-13.19%	-0.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.11%	-6.04%	-0.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.26%	-13.19%	-0.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.28%	-0.34%	+0.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.42%	-1.18%	-0.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.27%	1.18%	+0.09%

Volatility

DECT vs. FEBT - Volatility Comparison

Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Dec ETF (DECT) has a higher volatility of 1.65% compared to Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) at 1.28%. This indicates that DECT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FEBT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DECT	FEBT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.65%	1.28%	+0.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.34%	5.98%	+0.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.68%	7.67%	+1.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.23%	9.75%	+0.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.23%	9.75%	+0.48%

DECT vs. FEBT - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both DECT and FEBT have an expense ratio of 0.74%.

Dividends

DECT vs. FEBT - Dividend Comparison

Neither DECT nor FEBT has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
DECT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Dec ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.43%
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.28%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DECT and FEBT in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, DECT and FEBT 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, DECT or FEBT?

DECT has higher volatility (1.65%) compared to FEBT (1.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DECT dropped -13.26% vs FEBT's -13.19%.

Which ETF is better, DECT or FEBT?

On 3-year performance, FEBT leads with 16.37% vs 14.52% for DECT. Both ETFs have the same 0.74% expense ratio. On volatility, FEBT has been the lower-risk option at 1.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DECT or FEBT?

Over the 3-year period, FEBT has performed better with a 16.37% return vs 14.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DECT or FEBT?

DECT and FEBT have the same expense ratio: 0.74% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, DECT or FEBT?

DECT and FEBT have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FEBT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.67 vs 2.45), 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.