FWD vs. BUFC

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FWD (AB Disruptors ETF) and BUFC (AB Conservative Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FWD is a Global Equities fund actively managed by AllianceBernstein, while BUFC is a Options Trading fund actively managed by AllianceBernstein. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FWD returned 72.96% vs 8.86% for BUFC. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FWD charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for BUFC.

Performance

FWD vs. BUFC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) and AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FWD achieves a 38.47% return, which is significantly higher than BUFC's 2.84% return.

FWD

• 1D: -1.17%
• 1M: 10.81%
• YTD: 38.47%
• 6M: 37.27%
• 1Y: 72.96%
• 3Y*: 38.93%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BUFC

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 1.58%
• YTD: 2.84%
• 6M: 3.28%
• 1Y: 8.86%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FWD vs. BUFC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	38.47%	32.00%	29.23%	3.19%
BUFC AB Conservative Buffer ETF	2.84%	5.50%	10.81%	0.47%

Correlation

The correlation between FWD and BUFC is 0.62, 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	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2023	0.68

The correlation between FWD and BUFC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

FWD vs. BUFC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FWD	BUFC
Technology	52.6%	33.6%
Industrials	17.7%	8.6%
Healthcare	6.6%	9.6%
Communication Services	2.6%	10.5%
Energy	2.6%	3.4%
Consumer Cyclical	2.4%	10.1%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.9%
Utilities	1.0%	2.5%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	5.3%
Real Estate	0.7%	2.0%
Financial Services	0.5%	12.5%

Return for Risk

FWD vs. BUFC — Risk / Return Rank

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

FWD

FWD Risk / Return Rank: 87
FWD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
FWD Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
FWD Omega Ratio Rank: 82
FWD Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
FWD Martin Ratio Rank: 89

BUFC

BUFC Risk / Return Rank: 61
BUFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
BUFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
BUFC Omega Ratio Rank: 68
BUFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
BUFC Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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.

FWD vs. BUFC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) and AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC). 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.

	FWD	BUFC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.03	2.09	+0.94
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.66	2.97	+0.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.40	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.63	2.46	+3.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.01	10.49	+9.52
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FWD vs. BUFC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FWD Sharpe Ratio is 3.03, which is higher than the BUFC Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FWD and BUFC, 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

	FWD	BUFC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.03	2.09	+0.94
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.65	1.42	+0.23

Drawdowns

FWD vs. BUFC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FWD drawdown since its inception was -29.02%, which is greater than BUFC's maximum drawdown of -8.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FWD and BUFC.

Drawdown Indicators

	FWD	BUFC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.02%	-8.29%	-20.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.03%	-3.62%	-9.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.44%	-0.12%	-1.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.06%	-0.76%	-3.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.66%	0.85%	+2.81%

Volatility

FWD vs. BUFC - Volatility Comparison

AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) has a higher volatility of 7.87% compared to AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) at 0.98%. This indicates that FWD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BUFC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FWD	BUFC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.87%	0.98%	+6.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.00%	3.36%	+15.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.18%	4.25%	+19.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.72%	5.64%	+19.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.72%	5.64%	+19.08%

FWD vs. BUFC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FWD has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFC's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

FWD vs. BUFC - Dividend Comparison

FWD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.08%, while BUFC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BUFC AB Conservative Buffer ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	0.08%	0.11%	1.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FWD and BUFC in my portfolio?

FWD and BUFC have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FWD or BUFC?

FWD has higher volatility (7.87%) compared to BUFC (0.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FWD dropped -29.02% vs BUFC's -8.29%.

Which ETF is better, FWD or BUFC?

On 1-year performance, FWD leads with 72.96% vs 8.86% for BUFC. On fees, FWD is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, BUFC has been the lower-risk option at 0.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FWD or BUFC?

Over the 1-year period, FWD has performed better with a 72.96% return vs 8.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FWD or BUFC?

FWD is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for BUFC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FWD or BUFC?

FWD has the higher dividend yield at 0.08%, compared with 0.00% for BUFC.

What is the main difference between FWD and BUFC?

FWD is categorized as Global Equities, while BUFC is Options Trading. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for FWD and 0.69% for BUFC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FWD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.03 vs 2.09), 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.