MARU vs. FBUF

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MARU (AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Mar ETF) and FBUF (Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. MARU is passively managed, while FBUF is actively managed. Over the past year, MARU returned 19.96% vs 19.74% for FBUF. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MARU charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for FBUF.

Performance

MARU vs. FBUF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Mar ETF (MARU) and Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MARU achieves a 8.21% return, which is significantly higher than FBUF's 5.54% return.

MARU

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: 3.79%
• YTD: 8.21%
• 6M: 7.97%
• 1Y: 19.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FBUF

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: 2.65%
• YTD: 5.54%
• 6M: 6.41%
• 1Y: 19.74%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MARU vs. FBUF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MARU AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Mar ETF	8.21%	12.53%
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF	5.54%	14.96%

Correlation

The correlation between MARU and FBUF is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 4, 2025	0.93

The correlation between MARU and FBUF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MARU vs. FBUF — Risk / Return Rank

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

MARU

MARU Risk / Return Rank: 62
MARU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
MARU Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
MARU Omega Ratio Rank: 62
MARU Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
MARU Martin Ratio Rank: 65

FBUF

FBUF Risk / Return Rank: 81
FBUF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
FBUF Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
FBUF Omega Ratio Rank: 87
FBUF Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
FBUF Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

MARU vs. FBUF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Mar ETF (MARU) and Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF). 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.

	MARU	FBUF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	2.65	-0.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	3.58	-0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.53	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.05	3.53	-0.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.71	15.78	-4.07
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MARU vs. FBUF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MARU Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is comparable to the FBUF Sharpe Ratio of 2.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MARU and FBUF, 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

	MARU	FBUF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.04	2.65	-0.60
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.45	1.48	-0.03

Drawdowns

MARU vs. FBUF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MARU drawdown since its inception was -8.50%, smaller than the maximum FBUF drawdown of -11.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MARU and FBUF.

Drawdown Indicators

	MARU	FBUF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.50%	-11.09%	+2.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.56%	-5.61%	-0.95%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.22%	-0.01%	-0.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.34%	-1.37%	+0.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.71%	1.25%	+0.46%

Volatility

MARU vs. FBUF - Volatility Comparison

AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Mar ETF (MARU) has a higher volatility of 2.38% compared to Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF) at 1.08%. This indicates that MARU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FBUF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MARU	FBUF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.38%	1.08%	+1.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.47%	5.37%	+2.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.80%	7.48%	+2.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.76%	9.54%	+2.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.76%	9.54%	+2.22%

MARU vs. FBUF - Expense Ratio Comparison

MARU has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than FBUF's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

MARU vs. FBUF - Dividend Comparison

MARU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FBUF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.62%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF	0.62%	0.64%	0.54%
MARU AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Mar ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MARU and FBUF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, MARU and FBUF move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, MARU or FBUF?

MARU has higher volatility (2.38%) compared to FBUF (1.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MARU dropped -8.50% vs FBUF's -11.09%.

Which ETF is better, MARU or FBUF?

On 1-year performance, MARU leads with 19.96% vs 19.74% for FBUF. On fees, FBUF is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, FBUF has been the lower-risk option at 1.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MARU or FBUF?

Over the 1-year period, MARU has performed better with a 19.96% return vs 19.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MARU or FBUF?

FBUF is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for MARU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MARU or FBUF?

FBUF has the higher dividend yield at 0.62%, compared with 0.00% for MARU.

What is the main difference between MARU and FBUF?

They also come from different issuers: AllianzIM and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for MARU and 0.48% for FBUF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBUF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.65 vs 2.04), 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.