PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FBUF vs. TMAR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FBUF vs. TMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF) and FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FBUF achieves a 5.32% return, which is significantly lower than TMAR's 14.45% return.


FBUF

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

TMAR

1D
-0.72%
1M
2.73%
YTD
14.45%
6M
15.92%
1Y
28.83%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FBUF vs. TMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between FBUF and TMAR is 0.57, 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

0.57

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 25, 2025

0.55

The correlation between FBUF and TMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.57 - 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. TMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

FBUF
FBUF Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
FBUF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8080
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FBUF Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
FBUF Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
FBUF Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
FBUF Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
Martin Ratio Rank

TMAR
TMAR Risk / Return Rank: 9494
Overall Rank
TMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 9393
Sortino Ratio Rank
TMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 9696
Omega Ratio Rank
TMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 9595
Calmar Ratio Rank
TMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 9696
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.

FBUF vs. TMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF) and FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR). 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.


FBUFTMARDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.43

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.08

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.53

1.77

-0.24

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.51

7.95

-4.44

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.68

38.42

-22.74

FBUF vs. TMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBUF Sharpe Ratio is 2.63, which is comparable to the TMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBUF and TMAR, 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


FBUFTMARDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.63

3.06

-0.43

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.47

2.25

-0.78

Drawdowns

FBUF vs. TMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBUF drawdown since its inception was -11.09%, which is greater than TMAR's maximum drawdown of -9.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBUF and TMAR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FBUFTMARDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-11.09%

-9.93%

-1.16%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.61%

-3.64%

-1.97%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.22%

-0.72%

+0.50%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.38%

-0.66%

-0.72%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.25%

0.75%

+0.50%

Volatility

FBUF vs. TMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF) is 1.11%, while FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR) has a volatility of 4.53%. This indicates that FBUF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FBUFTMARDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.11%

4.53%

-3.42%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.37%

8.17%

-2.80%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

7.49%

9.47%

-1.98%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

9.55%

11.42%

-1.87%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.55%

11.42%

-1.87%

FBUF vs. TMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBUF has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than TMAR's 0.95% expense ratio.


Dividends

FBUF vs. TMAR - Dividend Comparison

FBUF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.63%, while TMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024
FBUF
Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF
0.63%0.64%0.54%
TMAR
FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March
0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


FBUF and TMAR have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

TMAR has higher volatility (4.53%) compared to FBUF (1.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBUF dropped -11.09% vs TMAR's -9.93%.

On 1-year performance, TMAR leads with 28.83% vs 19.61% for FBUF. On fees, FBUF is cheaper at 0.48% 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.

Over the 1-year period, TMAR has performed better with a 28.83% return vs 19.61%. 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 0.95% for TMAR.

FBUF has the higher dividend yield at 0.63%, compared with 0.00% for TMAR.

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for FBUF and 0.95% for TMAR.

TMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.06 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FBUF and TMAR

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