FBUF vs. ONEQ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FBUF (Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF) and ONEQ (Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FBUF is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Fidelity, while ONEQ is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite Index. FBUF is actively managed, while ONEQ is passively managed. Over the past year, FBUF returned 19.61% vs 39.62% for ONEQ. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FBUF charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.21%/yr for ONEQ.

Performance

FBUF vs. ONEQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF) and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FBUF achieves a 5.32% return, which is significantly lower than ONEQ's 16.16% return.

FBUF

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 2.85%
• YTD: 5.32%
• 6M: 6.28%
• 1Y: 19.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ONEQ

• 1D: -0.85%
• 1M: 7.21%
• YTD: 16.16%
• 6M: 15.18%
• 1Y: 39.62%
• 3Y*: 27.68%
• 5Y*: 15.43%
• 10Y*: 19.68%

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

FBUF vs. ONEQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF	5.32%	14.01%	10.13%
ONEQ Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF	16.16%	20.89%	18.18%

Correlation

The correlation between FBUF and ONEQ 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 Apr 12, 2024	0.89

The correlation between FBUF and ONEQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FBUF vs. ONEQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FBUF

FBUF Risk / Return Rank: 79
FBUF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
FBUF Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
FBUF Omega Ratio Rank: 86
FBUF Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
FBUF Martin Ratio Rank: 80

ONEQ

ONEQ Risk / Return Rank: 68
ONEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
ONEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
ONEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 69
ONEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
ONEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

FBUF vs. ONEQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF) and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ). 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	ONEQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.63	2.48	+0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.55	3.26	+0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	1.43	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.51	3.15	+0.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.68	12.46	+3.22
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FBUF vs. ONEQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBUF Sharpe Ratio is 2.63, which is comparable to the ONEQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBUF and ONEQ, 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

	FBUF	ONEQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.63	2.48	+0.15
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.70	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.91	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.47	0.65	+0.82

Drawdowns

FBUF vs. ONEQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBUF drawdown since its inception was -11.09%, smaller than the maximum ONEQ drawdown of -55.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBUF and ONEQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBUF	ONEQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.09%	-55.09%	+44.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.61%	-12.64%	+7.03%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-24.09%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.23%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.23%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.22%	-0.85%	+0.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.38%	-7.95%	+6.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.25%	3.19%	-1.94%

Volatility

FBUF vs. ONEQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF) is 1.11%, while Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ) has a volatility of 4.20%. This indicates that FBUF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ONEQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FBUF	ONEQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.11%	4.20%	-3.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.37%	11.96%	-6.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.49%	16.05%	-8.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.55%	22.14%	-12.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.55%	21.71%	-12.16%

FBUF vs. ONEQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBUF has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is higher than ONEQ's 0.21% expense ratio.

Dividends

FBUF vs. ONEQ - Dividend Comparison

FBUF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.63%, less than ONEQ's 0.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF	0.63%	0.64%	0.54%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ONEQ Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF	0.67%	0.54%	0.65%	0.71%	0.97%	0.54%	0.71%	2.51%	1.08%	0.84%	1.12%	1.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FBUF and ONEQ in my portfolio?

FBUF and ONEQ 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.

Which is riskier, FBUF or ONEQ?

ONEQ has higher volatility (4.20%) compared to FBUF (1.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBUF dropped -11.09% vs ONEQ's -55.09%.

Which ETF is better, FBUF or ONEQ?

On 1-year performance, ONEQ leads with 39.62% vs 19.61% for FBUF. On fees, ONEQ is cheaper at 0.21% per year. On volatility, FBUF has been the lower-risk option at 1.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FBUF or ONEQ?

Over the 1-year period, ONEQ has performed better with a 39.62% return vs 19.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBUF or ONEQ?

ONEQ is cheaper with a 0.21% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for FBUF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FBUF or ONEQ?

ONEQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.67%, compared with 0.63% for FBUF.

What is the main difference between FBUF and ONEQ?

FBUF is categorized as Defined Outcome, while ONEQ is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for FBUF and 0.21% for ONEQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBUF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.63 vs 2.48), 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.