LCF vs. BUFH
LCF (Touchstone US Large Cap Focused ETF) and BUFH (FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LCF is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Touchstone, while BUFH is a Defined Outcome fund managed by First Trust. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LCF charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BUFH.
Performance
LCF vs. BUFH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LCF achieves a 5.23% return, which is significantly higher than BUFH's 2.49% return.
LCF
- 1D
- -0.42%
- 1M
- 2.89%
- YTD
- 5.23%
- 6M
- 6.34%
- 1Y
- 22.60%
- 3Y*
- 17.79%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BUFH
- 1D
- 0.05%
- 1M
- 0.71%
- YTD
- 2.49%
- 6M
- 3.04%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LCF vs. BUFH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
LCF Touchstone US Large Cap Focused ETF | 5.23% | 12.43% |
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF | 2.49% | 3.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between LCF and BUFH is 0.70, 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 | 0.70 |
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
LCF vs. BUFH — Risk / Return Rank
LCF
BUFH
LCF vs. BUFH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Touchstone US Large Cap Focused ETF (LCF) 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.
| LCF | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.91 | — | — |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.67 | — | — |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | — | — |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.96 | — | — |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.14 | — | — |
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
| LCF | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.91 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.05 | 2.94 | -1.88 |
Drawdowns
LCF vs. BUFH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LCF drawdown since its inception was -18.28%, which is greater than BUFH's maximum drawdown of -1.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCF and BUFH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LCF | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -18.28% | -1.53% | -16.75% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.67% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.28% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.42% | 0.00% | -0.42% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.82% | -0.18% | -2.64% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.82% | — | — |
Volatility
LCF vs. BUFH - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LCF | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.42% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.01% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.86% | 2.37% | +9.49% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.47% | 2.37% | +13.10% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.47% | 2.37% | +13.10% |
LCF vs. BUFH - Expense Ratio Comparison
LCF has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFH's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
LCF vs. BUFH - Dividend Comparison
LCF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.52%, while BUFH has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
LCF Touchstone US Large Cap Focused ETF | 0.52% | 0.55% | 0.63% | 0.71% | 0.24% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LCF and BUFH have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, LCF is cheaper at 0.70% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
LCF is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFH.
LCF has the higher dividend yield at 0.52%, compared with 0.00% for BUFH.
LCF is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BUFH is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: Touchstone and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for LCF and 0.95% for BUFH.
Find the right allocation for LCF 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