NANC vs. BUFH
NANC (Unusual Whales Subversive Democratic Trading ETF) and BUFH (FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NANC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Subversive, while BUFH is a Defined Outcome fund managed by First Trust. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NANC charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BUFH.
Performance
NANC vs. BUFH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, NANC achieves a 10.06% return, which is significantly higher than BUFH's 2.45% return.
NANC
- 1D
- 0.53%
- 1M
- 5.83%
- YTD
- 10.06%
- 6M
- 9.47%
- 1Y
- 26.56%
- 3Y*
- 23.86%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BUFH
- 1D
- -0.05%
- 1M
- 0.75%
- YTD
- 2.45%
- 6M
- 2.82%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
NANC vs. BUFH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
NANC Unusual Whales Subversive Democratic Trading ETF | 10.06% | 11.49% |
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF | 2.45% | 3.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between NANC and BUFH is 0.73, 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 | 0.73 |
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
NANC vs. BUFH — Risk / Return Rank
NANC
BUFH
NANC vs. BUFH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Unusual Whales Subversive Democratic Trading ETF (NANC) 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.
| NANC | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.35 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.18 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.04 | — | — |
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
| NANC | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.96 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.39 | 2.91 | -1.51 |
Drawdowns
NANC vs. BUFH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NANC drawdown since its inception was -20.94%, which is greater than BUFH's maximum drawdown of -1.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NANC and BUFH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| NANC | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -20.94% | -1.53% | -19.41% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.21% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -20.94% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.82% | -0.05% | -0.77% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.67% | -0.18% | -2.49% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.95% | — | — |
Volatility
NANC vs. BUFH - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| NANC | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.62% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.39% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.59% | 2.37% | +11.22% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.72% | 2.37% | +14.35% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.72% | 2.37% | +14.35% |
NANC vs. BUFH - Expense Ratio Comparison
NANC has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFH's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
NANC vs. BUFH - Dividend Comparison
NANC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.19%, while BUFH has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
NANC Unusual Whales Subversive Democratic Trading ETF | 0.19% | 0.21% | 0.20% | 0.94% |
Frequently Asked Questions
NANC and BUFH have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, NANC is cheaper at 0.72% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
NANC is cheaper with a 0.72% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFH.
NANC has the higher dividend yield at 0.19%, compared with 0.00% for BUFH.
NANC is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BUFH is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: Subversive and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for NANC and 0.95% for BUFH.
Find the right allocation for NANC 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