FLCC vs. BUFH
FLCC (Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF) and BUFH (FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLCC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Federated Hermes, while BUFH is a Defined Outcome fund managed by First Trust. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLCC charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BUFH.
Performance
FLCC vs. BUFH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FLCC achieves a 9.74% return, which is significantly higher than BUFH's 2.49% return.
FLCC
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- 3.96%
- YTD
- 9.74%
- 6M
- 10.95%
- 1Y
- 23.60%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BUFH
- 1D
- 0.05%
- 1M
- 0.71%
- YTD
- 2.49%
- 6M
- 3.04%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FLCC vs. BUFH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
FLCC Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF | 9.74% | 10.17% |
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF | 2.49% | 3.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between FLCC and BUFH is 0.70, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025 | 0.70 |
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
FLCC vs. BUFH — Risk / Return Rank
FLCC
BUFH
FLCC vs. BUFH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF (FLCC) and FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH). 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.
| FLCC | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.87 | — | — |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.61 | — | — |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.33 | — | — |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.59 | — | — |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.52 | — | — |
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
| FLCC | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.87 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.18 | 2.94 | -1.75 |
Drawdowns
FLCC vs. BUFH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FLCC drawdown since its inception was -19.18%, which is greater than BUFH's maximum drawdown of -1.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCC and BUFH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FLCC | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.18% | -1.53% | -17.65% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.31% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.12% | 0.00% | -0.12% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.35% | -0.18% | -2.17% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.29% | — | — |
Volatility
FLCC vs. BUFH - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FLCC | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.54% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.51% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.66% | 2.37% | +10.29% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.38% | 2.37% | +15.01% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.38% | 2.37% | +15.01% |
FLCC vs. BUFH - Expense Ratio Comparison
FLCC has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFH's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
FLCC vs. BUFH - Dividend Comparison
FLCC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.46%, while BUFH has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
FLCC Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF | 0.46% | 0.50% | 0.20% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FLCC and BUFH have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, FLCC is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FLCC is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFH.
FLCC has the higher dividend yield at 0.46%, compared with 0.00% for BUFH.
FLCC is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BUFH is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: Federated Hermes and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for FLCC and 0.95% for BUFH.
Find the right allocation for FLCC and BUFH
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