JULP vs. FBUF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

JULP (PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July) and FBUF (Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, JULP returned 17.08% vs 19.61% for FBUF. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. JULP charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for FBUF.

Performance

JULP vs. FBUF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July (JULP) and Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with JULP having a 5.33% return and FBUF slightly lower at 5.32%.

JULP

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 1.47%
• YTD: 5.33%
• 6M: 6.10%
• 1Y: 17.08%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FBUF

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 2.85%
• YTD: 5.32%
• 6M: 6.28%
• 1Y: 19.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

JULP vs. FBUF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
JULP PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July	5.33%	13.68%	8.37%
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF	5.32%	14.01%	10.58%

Correlation

The correlation between JULP and FBUF is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 9, 2024	0.89

The correlation between JULP and FBUF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

JULP vs. FBUF — Risk / Return Rank

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

JULP

JULP Risk / Return Rank: 84
JULP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
JULP Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
JULP Omega Ratio Rank: 87
JULP Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
JULP Martin Ratio Rank: 90

FBUF

FBUF Risk / Return Rank: 79
FBUF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
FBUF Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
FBUF Omega Ratio Rank: 86
FBUF Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
FBUF Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

JULP vs. FBUF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July (JULP) and Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF). 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.

	JULP	FBUF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.59	2.63	-0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.81	3.55	+0.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.54	1.53	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.84	3.51	+0.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.97	15.68	+5.29
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

JULP vs. FBUF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JULP Sharpe Ratio is 2.59, which is comparable to the FBUF Sharpe Ratio of 2.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JULP and FBUF, 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

	JULP	FBUF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.59	2.63	-0.04
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.38	1.47	-0.08

Drawdowns

JULP vs. FBUF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JULP drawdown since its inception was -12.36%, which is greater than FBUF's maximum drawdown of -11.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JULP and FBUF.

Drawdown Indicators

	JULP	FBUF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.36%	-11.09%	-1.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.47%	-5.61%	+1.14%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.02%	-0.22%	+0.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.09%	-1.38%	+0.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.82%	1.25%	-0.43%

Volatility

JULP vs. FBUF - Volatility Comparison

PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July (JULP) and Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF) have volatilities of 1.06% and 1.11%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JULP	FBUF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.06%	1.11%	-0.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.87%	5.37%	-0.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.65%	7.49%	-0.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.77%	9.55%	+0.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.77%	9.55%	+0.22%

JULP vs. FBUF - Expense Ratio Comparison

JULP has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than FBUF's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

JULP vs. FBUF - Dividend Comparison

JULP has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FBUF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.63%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF	0.63%	0.64%	0.54%
JULP PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JULP and FBUF in my portfolio?

JULP and FBUF have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JULP or FBUF?

FBUF has higher volatility (1.11%) compared to JULP (1.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JULP dropped -12.36% vs FBUF's -11.09%.

Which ETF is better, JULP or FBUF?

On 1-year performance, FBUF leads with 19.61% vs 17.08% for JULP. On fees, FBUF is cheaper at 0.48% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JULP or FBUF?

Over the 1-year period, FBUF has performed better with a 19.61% return vs 17.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JULP or FBUF?

FBUF is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for JULP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, JULP or FBUF?

FBUF has the higher dividend yield at 0.63%, compared with 0.00% for JULP.

What is the main difference between JULP and FBUF?

They also come from different issuers: PGIM and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for JULP and 0.48% for FBUF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBUF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.63 vs 2.59), 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.