FAPR vs. BUFQ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FAPR (FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - April) and BUFQ (FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FAPR is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the S&P 500, while BUFQ is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ 100 Index - USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FAPR returned 13.47%/yr vs 16.99%/yr for BUFQ. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FAPR charges 0.85%/yr vs 1.10%/yr for BUFQ.

Performance

FAPR vs. BUFQ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FAPR achieves a 5.18% return, which is significantly lower than BUFQ's 9.53% return.

FAPR

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 2.57%
• YTD: 5.18%
• 6M: 6.07%
• 1Y: 12.66%
• 3Y*: 13.47%
• 5Y*: 8.95%
• 10Y*: —

BUFQ

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 2.68%
• YTD: 9.53%
• 6M: 10.14%
• 1Y: 21.61%
• 3Y*: 16.99%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FAPR vs. BUFQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FAPR FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - April	5.18%	7.58%	18.14%	19.50%	5.47%
BUFQ FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF	9.53%	14.03%	16.41%	35.51%	0.75%

Correlation

The correlation between FAPR and BUFQ is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 17, 2022	0.85

The correlation between FAPR and BUFQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

FAPR vs. BUFQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FAPR	BUFQ
Technology	36.2%	54.2%
Financial Services	11.9%	0.2%
Communication Services	10.9%	15.5%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	12.2%
Healthcare	8.4%	4.2%
Industrials	8.1%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	7.6%
Energy	3.5%	0.6%
Utilities	2.3%	1.4%
Real Estate	1.9%	0.1%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.2%

Return for Risk

FAPR vs. BUFQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FAPR

FAPR Risk / Return Rank: 96
FAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
FAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
FAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 95
FAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
FAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

BUFQ

BUFQ Risk / Return Rank: 84
BUFQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
BUFQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
BUFQ Omega Ratio Rank: 85
BUFQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
BUFQ Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

FAPR vs. BUFQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - April (FAPR) 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.

	FAPR	BUFQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.37	2.62	+0.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.48	3.88	+1.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.75	1.53	+0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	11.10	4.03	+7.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	48.99	20.34	+28.65
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FAPR vs. BUFQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FAPR Sharpe Ratio is 3.37, which is comparable to the BUFQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FAPR 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FAPR	BUFQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.37	2.62	+0.75
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.87	1.42	-0.56

Drawdowns

FAPR vs. BUFQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FAPR drawdown since its inception was -15.96%, roughly equal to the maximum BUFQ drawdown of -15.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FAPR and BUFQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FAPR	BUFQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.96%	-15.74%	-0.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.15%	-5.39%	+4.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.64%	-15.74%	+4.10%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-15.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.25%	-0.04%	-0.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.71%	-2.31%	-0.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.26%	1.06%	-0.80%

Volatility

FAPR vs. BUFQ - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - April (FAPR) has a higher volatility of 1.43% compared to FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ) at 1.17%. This indicates that FAPR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BUFQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FAPR	BUFQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.43%	1.17%	+0.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.83%	6.42%	-3.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.79%	8.31%	-4.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.49%	13.35%	-2.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.43%	13.35%	-2.92%

FAPR vs. BUFQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FAPR vs. BUFQ - Dividend Comparison

Neither FAPR nor BUFQ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FAPR and BUFQ in my portfolio?

FAPR and BUFQ have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FAPR or BUFQ?

FAPR has higher volatility (1.43%) compared to BUFQ (1.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FAPR dropped -15.96% vs BUFQ's -15.74%.

Which ETF is better, FAPR or BUFQ?

On 3-year performance, BUFQ leads with 16.99% vs 13.47% for FAPR. On fees, FAPR is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, BUFQ has been the lower-risk option at 1.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FAPR or BUFQ?

Over the 3-year period, BUFQ has performed better with a 16.99% return vs 13.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FAPR or BUFQ?

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

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FAPR or BUFQ?

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

What is the main difference between FAPR and BUFQ?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FAPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.37 vs 2.62), 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.