PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
LQTI vs. BUFD
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

LQTI vs. BUFD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) and FT Vest Laddered Deep Buffer ETF (BUFD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LQTI achieves a 0.16% return, which is significantly lower than BUFD's 5.08% return.


LQTI

1D
-0.26%
1M
0.41%
YTD
0.16%
6M
-0.04%
1Y
5.69%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

BUFD

1D
-0.08%
1M
1.70%
YTD
5.08%
6M
5.68%
1Y
14.40%
3Y*
12.09%
5Y*
7.62%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LQTI vs. BUFD - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between LQTI and BUFD is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.32

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 14, 2025

0.30

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

LQTI vs. BUFD — Risk / Return Rank

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

LQTI
LQTI Risk / Return Rank: 3232
Overall Rank
LQTI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LQTI Sortino Ratio Rank: 3030
Sortino Ratio Rank
LQTI Omega Ratio Rank: 2929
Omega Ratio Rank
LQTI Calmar Ratio Rank: 3434
Calmar Ratio Rank
LQTI Martin Ratio Rank: 3434
Martin Ratio Rank

BUFD
BUFD Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
BUFD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BUFD Sortino Ratio Rank: 9191
Sortino Ratio Rank
BUFD Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
BUFD Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
BUFD Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

LQTI vs. BUFD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) and FT Vest Laddered Deep Buffer ETF (BUFD). 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.


LQTIBUFDDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.67

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.68

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.19

1.58

-0.39

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.68

4.21

-2.54

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.15

22.97

-17.82

LQTI vs. BUFD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LQTI Sharpe Ratio is 1.12, which is lower than the BUFD Sharpe Ratio of 2.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LQTI and BUFD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


LQTIBUFDDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.12

2.79

-1.67

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.99

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.88

1.00

-0.12

Drawdowns

LQTI vs. BUFD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LQTI drawdown since its inception was -3.41%, smaller than the maximum BUFD drawdown of -10.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQTI and BUFD.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


LQTIBUFDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-3.41%

-10.75%

+7.34%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.41%

-3.43%

+0.02%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-10.15%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-10.75%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.44%

-0.15%

-1.29%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.88%

-1.97%

+1.09%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.11%

0.63%

+0.48%

Volatility

LQTI vs. BUFD - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) has a higher volatility of 1.65% compared to FT Vest Laddered Deep Buffer ETF (BUFD) at 0.79%. This indicates that LQTI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BUFD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


LQTIBUFDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.65%

0.79%

+0.86%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.02%

3.94%

+0.08%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.10%

5.19%

-0.09%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.97%

7.73%

-1.76%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5.97%

7.55%

-1.58%

LQTI vs. BUFD - Expense Ratio Comparison

LQTI has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFD's 0.95% expense ratio.


Dividends

LQTI vs. BUFD - Dividend Comparison

LQTI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.11%, while BUFD has not paid dividends to shareholders.


Frequently Asked Questions


LQTI and BUFD have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

LQTI has higher volatility (1.65%) compared to BUFD (0.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQTI dropped -3.41% vs BUFD's -10.75%.

On 1-year performance, BUFD leads with 14.40% vs 5.69% for LQTI. On fees, LQTI is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, BUFD has been the lower-risk option at 0.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, BUFD has performed better with a 14.40% return vs 5.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

LQTI is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFD.

LQTI has the higher dividend yield at 9.11%, compared with 0.00% for BUFD.

LQTI is categorized as Derivative Income, while BUFD is Defined Outcome. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for LQTI and 0.95% for BUFD.

BUFD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.79 vs 1.12), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LQTI and BUFD

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