FLAO vs. FEBT

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FLAO (AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Floor5 Apr/Oct ETF) and FEBT (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLAO is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Allianz, while FEBT is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Allianz. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FLAO returned 3.64% vs 18.40% for FEBT. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.74% expense ratio.

Performance

FLAO vs. FEBT - 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 Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLAO achieves a -0.91% return, which is significantly lower than FEBT's 6.90% return.

FLAO

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 0.18%
• YTD: -0.91%
• 6M: -1.19%
• 1Y: 3.64%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FEBT

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: -0.24%
• YTD: 6.90%
• 6M: 6.53%
• 1Y: 18.40%
• 3Y*: 15.49%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLAO vs. FEBT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLAO AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Floor5 Apr/Oct ETF	-0.91%	3.38%	9.91%
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	6.90%	12.72%	9.36%

Correlation

The correlation between FLAO and FEBT is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2024	0.90

The correlation between FLAO and FEBT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FLAO vs. FEBT — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLAO

FLAO Risk / Return Rank: 18
FLAO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
FLAO Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
FLAO Omega Ratio Rank: 22
FLAO Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
FLAO Martin Ratio Rank: 18

FEBT

FEBT Risk / Return Rank: 79
FEBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
FEBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
FEBT Omega Ratio Rank: 83
FEBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
FEBT Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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. FEBT - 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 Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	FLAO	FEBT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.64	2.37	-1.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.89	3.39	-2.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.45	-0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.48	3.06	-2.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.95	15.28	-13.33

FLAO vs. FEBT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLAO Sharpe Ratio is 0.64, which is lower than the FEBT Sharpe Ratio of 2.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLAO and FEBT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FLAO vs. FEBT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLAO drawdown since its inception was -10.12%, smaller than the maximum FEBT drawdown of -13.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLAO and FEBT.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLAO	FEBT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.12%	-13.19%	+3.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.60%	-6.04%	-1.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.19%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.12%	-1.26%	-0.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.91%	-1.17%	-0.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.87%	1.21%	+0.66%

Volatility

FLAO vs. FEBT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Floor5 Apr/Oct ETF (FLAO) is 0.69%, while Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) has a volatility of 2.39%. This indicates that FLAO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FEBT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLAO	FEBT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.69%	2.39%	-1.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.10%	6.28%	-1.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.68%	7.84%	-2.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.42%	9.76%	-2.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.42%	9.76%	-2.34%

FLAO vs. FEBT - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FLAO and FEBT have an expense ratio of 0.74%.

Dividends

FLAO vs. FEBT - Dividend Comparison

Neither FLAO nor FEBT has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.28%
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 FEBT in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, FLAO and FEBT move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, FLAO or FEBT?

FEBT has higher volatility (2.39%) compared to FLAO (0.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLAO dropped -10.12% vs FEBT's -13.19%.

Which ETF is better, FLAO or FEBT?

On 1-year performance, FEBT leads with 18.40% vs 3.64% for FLAO. Both ETFs have the same 0.74% expense ratio. On volatility, FLAO has been the lower-risk option at 0.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLAO or FEBT?

Over the 1-year period, FEBT has performed better with a 18.40% return vs 3.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLAO or FEBT?

FLAO and FEBT have the same expense ratio: 0.74% per year.

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

FLAO and FEBT have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between FLAO and FEBT?

FLAO is categorized as Defined Outcome, while FEBT is Options Trading.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FEBT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 vs 0.64), 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.