KLMN vs. BUFH

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

KLMN (Invesco MSCI North America Climate ETF) and BUFH (FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - KLMN is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI Global Climate 500 North America Selection Index, while BUFH is a Defined Outcome fund managed by First Trust. Over the past year, KLMN returned 21.32% vs 6.16% for BUFH. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. KLMN charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BUFH.

Performance

KLMN vs. BUFH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco MSCI North America Climate ETF (KLMN) 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, KLMN achieves a 10.38% return, which is significantly higher than BUFH's 2.81% return.

KLMN

• 1D: -0.86%
• 1M: 1.35%
• 6M: 8.51%
• YTD: 10.38%
• 1Y: 21.32%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BUFH

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 0.49%
• 6M: 2.29%
• YTD: 2.81%
• 1Y: 6.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

KLMN vs. BUFH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
KLMN Invesco MSCI North America Climate ETF	10.38%	12.82%
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF	2.81%	3.81%

Correlation

The correlation between KLMN and BUFH is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2025	0.76

The correlation between KLMN and BUFH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

KLMN vs. BUFH — Risk / Return Rank

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

KLMN

KLMN Risk / Return Rank: 64
KLMN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
KLMN Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
KLMN Omega Ratio Rank: 63
KLMN Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
KLMN Martin Ratio Rank: 71

BUFH

BUFH Risk / Return Rank: 93
BUFH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
BUFH Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
BUFH Omega Ratio Rank: 95
BUFH Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
BUFH Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

KLMN vs. BUFH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI North America Climate ETF (KLMN) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	KLMN	BUFH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.69	2.61	-0.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.35	4.10	-1.74
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.58	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.39	4.04	-1.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.24	18.99	-8.75

KLMN vs. BUFH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KLMN Sharpe Ratio is 1.69, which is lower than the BUFH Sharpe Ratio of 2.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KLMN and BUFH, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

KLMN vs. BUFH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KLMN drawdown since its inception was -19.16%, which is greater than BUFH's maximum drawdown of -1.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KLMN and BUFH.

Drawdown Indicators

	KLMN	BUFH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.16%	-1.53%	-17.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.96%	-1.53%	-7.43%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.12%	-0.07%	-1.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.50%	-0.17%	-2.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.09%	0.33%	+1.76%

Volatility

KLMN vs. BUFH - Volatility Comparison

Invesco MSCI North America Climate ETF (KLMN) has a higher volatility of 3.72% compared to FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH) at 0.58%. This indicates that KLMN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BUFH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KLMN	BUFH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.72%	0.58%	+3.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.95%	1.97%	+7.98%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.68%	2.38%	+10.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.39%	2.34%	+15.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.39%	2.34%	+15.05%

KLMN vs. BUFH - Expense Ratio Comparison

KLMN has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFH's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

KLMN vs. BUFH - Dividend Comparison

KLMN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.20%, while BUFH has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF	0.00%	0.00%
KLMN Invesco MSCI North America Climate ETF	1.20%	1.25%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KLMN and BUFH in my portfolio?

KLMN and BUFH have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, KLMN or BUFH?

KLMN has higher volatility (3.72%) compared to BUFH (0.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KLMN dropped -19.16% vs BUFH's -1.53%.

Which ETF is better, KLMN or BUFH?

On 1-year performance, KLMN leads with 21.32% vs 6.16% for BUFH. On fees, KLMN is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, BUFH has been the lower-risk option at 0.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KLMN or BUFH?

Over the 1-year period, KLMN has performed better with a 21.32% return vs 6.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KLMN or BUFH?

KLMN is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFH.

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

KLMN has the higher dividend yield at 1.20%, compared with 0.00% for BUFH.

What is the main difference between KLMN and BUFH?

KLMN is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BUFH is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for KLMN and 0.95% for BUFH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BUFH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.61 vs 1.69), 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.