FLAO vs. FBUF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLAO (AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Floor5 Apr/Oct ETF) and FBUF (Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FLAO returned 4.33% vs 19.61% for FBUF. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FLAO charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for FBUF.

Performance

FLAO vs. FBUF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Floor5 Apr/Oct ETF (FLAO) and Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLAO achieves a -0.85% return, which is significantly lower than FBUF's 5.32% return.

FLAO

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 0.99%
• YTD: -0.85%
• 6M: -0.46%
• 1Y: 4.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FBUF

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

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

FLAO vs. FBUF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLAO AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Floor5 Apr/Oct ETF	-0.85%	3.38%	10.46%
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF	5.32%	14.01%	10.13%

Correlation

The correlation between FLAO and FBUF is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 12, 2024	0.89

The correlation between FLAO and FBUF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FLAO vs. FBUF — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLAO

FLAO Risk / Return Rank: 22
FLAO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
FLAO Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
FLAO Omega Ratio Rank: 27
FLAO Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
FLAO Martin Ratio Rank: 21

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

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.

FLAO vs. FBUF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Floor5 Apr/Oct ETF (FLAO) and Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF). 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.

	FLAO	FBUF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.76	2.63	-1.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.06	3.55	-2.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.53	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.57	3.51	-2.94
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.41	15.68	-13.27
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLAO vs. FBUF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLAO Sharpe Ratio is 0.76, which is lower than the FBUF Sharpe Ratio of 2.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLAO and FBUF, 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

	FLAO	FBUF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.76	2.63	-1.87
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.76	1.47	-0.71

Drawdowns

FLAO vs. FBUF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLAO drawdown since its inception was -10.12%, smaller than the maximum FBUF drawdown of -11.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLAO and FBUF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLAO	FBUF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.12%	-11.09%	+0.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.60%	-5.61%	-1.99%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.07%	-0.22%	-1.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.90%	-1.38%	-0.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.80%	1.25%	+0.55%

Volatility

FLAO vs. FBUF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Floor5 Apr/Oct ETF (FLAO) is 0.32%, while Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF) has a volatility of 1.11%. This indicates that FLAO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FBUF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLAO	FBUF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.32%	1.11%	-0.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.15%	5.37%	-0.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.69%	7.49%	-1.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.50%	9.55%	-2.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.50%	9.55%	-2.05%

FLAO vs. FBUF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLAO has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than FBUF's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLAO vs. FBUF - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF	0.63%	0.64%	0.54%
FLAO AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Floor5 Apr/Oct ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLAO and FBUF in my portfolio?

FLAO and FBUF have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLAO or FBUF?

FBUF has higher volatility (1.11%) compared to FLAO (0.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLAO dropped -10.12% vs FBUF's -11.09%.

Which ETF is better, FLAO or FBUF?

On 1-year performance, FBUF leads with 19.61% vs 4.33% for FLAO. On fees, FBUF is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, FLAO has been the lower-risk option at 0.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLAO or FBUF?

Over the 1-year period, FBUF has performed better with a 19.61% return vs 4.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLAO or FBUF?

FBUF is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for FLAO.

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

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

What is the main difference between FLAO and FBUF?

They also come from different issuers: Allianz and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for FLAO and 0.48% for FBUF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBUF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.63 vs 0.76), 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.