FMIL vs. BUFH

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FMIL (Fidelity New Millennium ETF) and BUFH (FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FMIL is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while BUFH is a Defined Outcome fund managed by First Trust. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FMIL charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BUFH.

Performance

FMIL vs. BUFH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity New Millennium ETF (FMIL) and FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FMIL achieves a 10.26% return, which is significantly higher than BUFH's 2.45% return.

FMIL

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: 3.15%
• YTD: 10.26%
• 6M: 11.18%
• 1Y: 26.96%
• 3Y*: 23.20%
• 5Y*: 15.85%
• 10Y*: —

BUFH

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 0.75%
• YTD: 2.45%
• 6M: 2.82%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FMIL vs. BUFH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FMIL Fidelity New Millennium ETF	10.26%	12.38%
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF	2.45%	3.89%

Correlation

The correlation between FMIL 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

Return for Risk

FMIL vs. BUFH — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMIL

FMIL Risk / Return Rank: 61
FMIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
FMIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
FMIL Omega Ratio Rank: 62
FMIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
FMIL 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.

FMIL vs. BUFH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity New Millennium ETF (FMIL) 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.

	FMIL	BUFH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.12	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.90	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.71	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.30	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FMIL	BUFH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.12	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.17	2.91	-1.74

Drawdowns

FMIL vs. BUFH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMIL drawdown since its inception was -19.72%, which is greater than BUFH's maximum drawdown of -1.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMIL and BUFH.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMIL	BUFH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.72%	-1.53%	-18.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.98%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.72%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.72%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.68%	-0.05%	-0.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.99%	-0.18%	-2.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.20%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FMIL	BUFH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.15%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.73%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.80%	2.37%	+10.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.92%	2.37%	+14.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.65%	2.37%	+15.28%

FMIL vs. BUFH - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMIL has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFH's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

FMIL vs. BUFH - Dividend Comparison

FMIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.00%, while BUFH has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FMIL Fidelity New Millennium ETF	1.00%	1.10%	0.82%	0.57%	1.67%	1.68%	0.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FMIL and BUFH in my portfolio?

FMIL 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.

Which ETF is better, FMIL or BUFH?

On fees, FMIL is cheaper at 0.59% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMIL or BUFH?

FMIL is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFH.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FMIL or BUFH?

FMIL has the higher dividend yield at 1.00%, compared with 0.00% for BUFH.

What is the main difference between FMIL and BUFH?

FMIL is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BUFH is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FMIL and 0.95% for BUFH.