LOWV vs. BUFC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LOWV (AB US Low Volatility Equity ETF) and BUFC (AB Conservative Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LOWV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by AllianceBernstein, while BUFC is a Options Trading fund actively managed by AllianceBernstein. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LOWV returned 10.86% vs 8.86% for BUFC. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LOWV charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for BUFC.

Performance

LOWV vs. BUFC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB US Low Volatility Equity ETF (LOWV) and AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with LOWV having a 2.73% return and BUFC slightly higher at 2.84%.

LOWV

• 1D: -0.83%
• 1M: 0.85%
• YTD: 2.73%
• 6M: 2.69%
• 1Y: 10.86%
• 3Y*: 15.49%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BUFC

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 1.58%
• YTD: 2.84%
• 6M: 3.28%
• 1Y: 8.86%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LOWV vs. BUFC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LOWV AB US Low Volatility Equity ETF	2.73%	12.26%	20.43%	-0.05%
BUFC AB Conservative Buffer ETF	2.84%	5.50%	10.81%	0.47%

Correlation

The correlation between LOWV and BUFC 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2023	0.76

The correlation between LOWV and BUFC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

LOWV vs. BUFC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LOWV	BUFC
Technology	32.6%	33.6%
Financial Services	14.9%	12.5%
Healthcare	11.4%	9.6%
Communication Services	9.7%	10.5%
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	10.1%
Industrials	7.4%	8.6%
Consumer Defensive	5.5%	5.3%
Utilities	4.8%	2.5%
Energy	2.4%	3.4%
Real Estate	1.8%	2.0%
Basic Materials	-	1.9%

Return for Risk

LOWV vs. BUFC — Risk / Return Rank

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

LOWV

LOWV Risk / Return Rank: 28
LOWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
LOWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
LOWV Omega Ratio Rank: 27
LOWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
LOWV Martin Ratio Rank: 31

BUFC

BUFC Risk / Return Rank: 61
BUFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
BUFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
BUFC Omega Ratio Rank: 68
BUFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
BUFC Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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.

LOWV vs. BUFC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB US Low Volatility Equity ETF (LOWV) and AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC). 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.

	LOWV	BUFC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.04	2.09	-1.05
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.50	2.97	-1.47
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.40	-0.22
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.14	2.46	-1.32
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.65	10.49	-5.84
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LOWV vs. BUFC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LOWV Sharpe Ratio is 1.04, which is lower than the BUFC Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LOWV and BUFC, 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

	LOWV	BUFC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.04	2.09	-1.05
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.47	1.42	+0.05

Drawdowns

LOWV vs. BUFC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LOWV drawdown since its inception was -13.87%, which is greater than BUFC's maximum drawdown of -8.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LOWV and BUFC.

Drawdown Indicators

	LOWV	BUFC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.87%	-8.29%	-5.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.59%	-3.62%	-5.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.87%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.95%	-0.12%	-0.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.50%	-0.76%	-0.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.34%	0.85%	+1.49%

Volatility

LOWV vs. BUFC - Volatility Comparison

AB US Low Volatility Equity ETF (LOWV) has a higher volatility of 2.17% compared to AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) at 0.98%. This indicates that LOWV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BUFC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LOWV	BUFC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.17%	0.98%	+1.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.89%	3.36%	+4.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.47%	4.25%	+6.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.95%	5.64%	+6.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.95%	5.64%	+6.31%

LOWV vs. BUFC - Expense Ratio Comparison

LOWV has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFC's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

LOWV vs. BUFC - Dividend Comparison

LOWV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.91%, while BUFC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BUFC AB Conservative Buffer ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LOWV AB US Low Volatility Equity ETF	0.91%	0.85%	0.92%	0.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LOWV and BUFC in my portfolio?

LOWV and BUFC 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.

Which is riskier, LOWV or BUFC?

LOWV has higher volatility (2.17%) compared to BUFC (0.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LOWV dropped -13.87% vs BUFC's -8.29%.

Which ETF is better, LOWV or BUFC?

On 1-year performance, LOWV leads with 10.86% vs 8.86% for BUFC. On fees, LOWV is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, BUFC has been the lower-risk option at 0.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LOWV or BUFC?

Over the 1-year period, LOWV has performed better with a 10.86% return vs 8.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LOWV or BUFC?

LOWV is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for BUFC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LOWV or BUFC?

LOWV has the higher dividend yield at 0.91%, compared with 0.00% for BUFC.

What is the main difference between LOWV and BUFC?

LOWV is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BUFC is Options Trading. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for LOWV and 0.69% for BUFC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BUFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 1.04), 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.