GMAY vs. BGLD

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GMAY (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - May) and BGLD (FT Vest Gold Strategy Quarterly Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GMAY is a Options Trading fund actively managed by FT Vest, while BGLD is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by FT Vest. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GMAY returned 12.18%/yr vs 19.37%/yr for BGLD. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GMAY charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.91%/yr for BGLD.

Performance

GMAY vs. BGLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - May (GMAY) and FT Vest Gold Strategy Quarterly Buffer ETF (BGLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMAY achieves a 4.42% return, which is significantly higher than BGLD's 0.32% return.

GMAY

• 1D: -0.35%
• 1M: 1.29%
• YTD: 4.42%
• 6M: 5.09%
• 1Y: 12.38%
• 3Y*: 12.18%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BGLD

• 1D: -0.52%
• 1M: 0.80%
• YTD: 0.32%
• 6M: 1.34%
• 1Y: 12.93%
• 3Y*: 19.37%
• 5Y*: 11.20%
• 10Y*: —

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

GMAY vs. BGLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GMAY FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - May	4.42%	11.94%	12.12%	8.88%
BGLD FT Vest Gold Strategy Quarterly Buffer ETF	0.32%	33.03%	21.80%	5.01%

Correlation

The correlation between GMAY and BGLD is 0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.09
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 23, 2023	0.11

Return for Risk

GMAY vs. BGLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMAY

GMAY Risk / Return Rank: 85
GMAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
GMAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
GMAY Omega Ratio Rank: 88
GMAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
GMAY Martin Ratio Rank: 92

BGLD

BGLD Risk / Return Rank: 28
BGLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
BGLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
BGLD Omega Ratio Rank: 31
BGLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
BGLD Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

GMAY vs. BGLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - May (GMAY) and FT Vest Gold Strategy Quarterly Buffer ETF (BGLD). 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.

	GMAY	BGLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.61	1.09	+1.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.94	1.51	+2.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	1.21	+0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.00	1.17	+2.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	23.44	3.72	+19.72
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GMAY vs. BGLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMAY Sharpe Ratio is 2.61, which is higher than the BGLD Sharpe Ratio of 1.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMAY and BGLD, 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

	GMAY	BGLD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.61	1.09	+1.52
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.13	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.60	1.05	+0.54

Drawdowns

GMAY vs. BGLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMAY drawdown since its inception was -11.75%, smaller than the maximum BGLD drawdown of -16.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMAY and BGLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMAY	BGLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.75%	-16.19%	+4.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.11%	-11.11%	+8.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.75%	-11.11%	-0.64%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-15.52%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.35%	-7.22%	+6.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.72%	-3.64%	+2.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.53%	3.49%	-2.96%

Volatility

GMAY vs. BGLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - May (GMAY) is 1.21%, while FT Vest Gold Strategy Quarterly Buffer ETF (BGLD) has a volatility of 2.20%. This indicates that GMAY experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BGLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GMAY	BGLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.21%	2.20%	-0.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.71%	10.04%	-6.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.77%	11.90%	-7.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.85%	9.97%	-2.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.85%	9.89%	-2.04%

GMAY vs. BGLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMAY has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than BGLD's 0.91% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMAY vs. BGLD - Dividend Comparison

GMAY has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BGLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 44.18%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BGLD FT Vest Gold Strategy Quarterly Buffer ETF	44.18%	44.32%	25.04%	10.49%	0.40%
GMAY FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - May	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GMAY and BGLD in my portfolio?

GMAY and BGLD have a correlation of 0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GMAY or BGLD?

BGLD has higher volatility (2.20%) compared to GMAY (1.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMAY dropped -11.75% vs BGLD's -16.19%.

Which ETF is better, GMAY or BGLD?

On 3-year performance, BGLD leads with 19.37% vs 12.18% for GMAY. On fees, GMAY is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, GMAY has been the lower-risk option at 1.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GMAY or BGLD?

Over the 3-year period, BGLD has performed better with a 19.37% return vs 12.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMAY or BGLD?

GMAY is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.91% for BGLD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GMAY or BGLD?

BGLD has the higher dividend yield at 44.18%, compared with 0.00% for GMAY.

What is the main difference between GMAY and BGLD?

GMAY is categorized as Options Trading, while BGLD is Defined Outcome. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for GMAY and 0.91% for BGLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMAY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.61 vs 1.09), 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.