FBUF vs. BUFP
FBUF (Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF) and BUFP (PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. FBUF is actively managed, while BUFP is passively managed. Over the past year, FBUF returned 19.61% vs 17.24% for BUFP. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FBUF charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for BUFP.
Performance
FBUF vs. BUFP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FBUF achieves a 5.32% return, which is significantly lower than BUFP's 6.23% return.
FBUF
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- 2.85%
- YTD
- 5.32%
- 6M
- 6.28%
- 1Y
- 19.61%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BUFP
- 1D
- -0.22%
- 1M
- 2.04%
- YTD
- 6.23%
- 6M
- 7.00%
- 1Y
- 17.24%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FBUF vs. BUFP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF | 5.32% | 14.01% | 7.85% |
BUFP PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF | 6.23% | 12.92% | 6.36% |
Correlation
The correlation between FBUF and BUFP is 0.88, 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 | 0.88 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 14, 2024 | 0.87 |
The correlation between FBUF and BUFP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.88 - 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
FBUF vs. BUFP — Risk / Return Rank
FBUF
BUFP
FBUF vs. BUFP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF) and PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP). 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.
| FBUF | BUFP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.13 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.57 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.53 | 1.58 | -0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.51 | 3.93 | -0.42 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 15.68 | 21.96 | -6.29 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| FBUF | BUFP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.63 | 2.77 | -0.13 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.47 | 1.40 | +0.07 |
Drawdowns
FBUF vs. BUFP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FBUF drawdown since its inception was -11.09%, smaller than the maximum BUFP drawdown of -11.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBUF and BUFP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FBUF | BUFP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -11.09% | -11.98% | +0.89% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.61% | -4.41% | -1.20% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.22% | -0.22% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.38% | -1.00% | -0.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.25% | 0.79% | +0.46% |
Volatility
FBUF vs. BUFP - Volatility Comparison
Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF) has a higher volatility of 1.11% compared to PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP) at 0.95%. This indicates that FBUF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BUFP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FBUF | BUFP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.11% | 0.95% | +0.16% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.37% | 4.82% | +0.55% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 7.49% | 6.27% | +1.22% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.55% | 9.49% | +0.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.55% | 9.49% | +0.06% |
FBUF vs. BUFP - Expense Ratio Comparison
FBUF has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFP's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
FBUF vs. BUFP - Dividend Comparison
FBUF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.63%, more than BUFP's 0.01% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
BUFP PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF | 0.01% | 0.01% | 0.02% |
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF | 0.63% | 0.64% | 0.54% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FBUF and BUFP have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FBUF has higher volatility (1.11%) compared to BUFP (0.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBUF dropped -11.09% vs BUFP's -11.98%.
On 1-year performance, FBUF leads with 19.61% vs 17.24% for BUFP. On fees, FBUF is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, BUFP has been the lower-risk option at 0.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, FBUF has performed better with a 19.61% return vs 17.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FBUF is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for BUFP.
FBUF has the higher dividend yield at 0.63%, compared with 0.01% for BUFP.
They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for FBUF and 0.50% for BUFP.
BUFP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.77 vs 2.63), 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 FBUF and BUFP
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