KLMN vs. BUFH
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. A 0.74 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
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, KLMN achieves a 10.80% return, which is significantly higher than BUFH's 2.45% return.
KLMN
- 1D
- -0.74%
- 1M
- 5.01%
- YTD
- 10.80%
- 6M
- 10.80%
- 1Y
- 27.74%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BUFH
- 1D
- -0.05%
- 1M
- 0.75%
- YTD
- 2.45%
- 6M
- 2.82%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
KLMN vs. BUFH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
KLMN Invesco MSCI North America Climate ETF | 10.80% | 13.00% |
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF | 2.45% | 3.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between KLMN and BUFH is 0.74, 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 | 0.74 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
KLMN vs. BUFH — Risk / Return Rank
KLMN
BUFH
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.
| KLMN | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.28 | — | — |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.12 | — | — |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.41 | — | — |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.11 | — | — |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 14.14 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| KLMN | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.28 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.99 | 2.91 | -1.92 |
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.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| KLMN | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.16% | -1.53% | -17.63% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.96% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.74% | -0.05% | -0.69% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.54% | -0.18% | -2.36% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.97% | — | — |
Volatility
KLMN vs. BUFH - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| KLMN | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.95% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.21% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.22% | 2.37% | +9.85% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.61% | 2.37% | +15.24% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.61% | 2.37% | +15.24% |
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 1.28%, 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 | 1.28% | 1.25% |
Frequently Asked Questions
KLMN and BUFH have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, KLMN is cheaper at 0.09% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
KLMN is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFH.
KLMN has the higher dividend yield at 1.28%, compared with 0.00% for 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.
Find the right allocation for KLMN and BUFH
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer