NVBW vs. FEBT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NVBW (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Nov ETF) and FEBT (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF) are both Options Trading funds from Allianz. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, NVBW returned 9.32%/yr vs 16.37%/yr for FEBT. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.74% expense ratio.

Performance

NVBW vs. FEBT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Nov ETF (NVBW) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NVBW achieves a 5.11% return, which is significantly lower than FEBT's 7.90% return.

NVBW

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 1.96%
• YTD: 5.11%
• 6M: 5.47%
• 1Y: 12.47%
• 3Y*: 9.32%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FEBT

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 2.78%
• YTD: 7.90%
• 6M: 8.78%
• 1Y: 20.34%
• 3Y*: 16.37%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NVBW vs. FEBT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
NVBW Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Nov ETF	5.11%	9.25%	9.03%	8.29%
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	7.90%	12.72%	17.29%	14.73%

Correlation

The correlation between NVBW and FEBT is 0.94, 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	0.94
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2023	0.91

The correlation between NVBW and FEBT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

NVBW vs. FEBT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NVBW	FEBT
Technology	36.2%	36.2%
Financial Services	11.9%	11.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	10.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	8.4%
Industrials	8.1%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.9%
Energy	3.5%	3.5%
Utilities	2.3%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.8%

Return for Risk

NVBW vs. FEBT — Risk / Return Rank

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

NVBW

NVBW Risk / Return Rank: 79
NVBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
NVBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
NVBW Omega Ratio Rank: 87
NVBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
NVBW Martin Ratio Rank: 81

FEBT

FEBT Risk / Return Rank: 81
FEBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
FEBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FEBT Omega Ratio Rank: 85
FEBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
FEBT Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

NVBW vs. FEBT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Nov ETF (NVBW) and Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT). 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.

	NVBW	FEBT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.52	2.67	-0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.72	3.85	-0.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.54	1.52	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.11	3.38	-0.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.81	17.26	-1.45
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NVBW vs. FEBT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NVBW Sharpe Ratio is 2.52, which is comparable to the FEBT Sharpe Ratio of 2.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NVBW and FEBT, 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

	NVBW	FEBT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.52	2.67	-0.15
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.49	1.64	-0.15

Drawdowns

NVBW vs. FEBT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NVBW drawdown since its inception was -8.41%, smaller than the maximum FEBT drawdown of -13.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NVBW and FEBT.

Drawdown Indicators

	NVBW	FEBT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.41%	-13.19%	+4.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.03%	-6.04%	+2.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.41%	-13.19%	+4.78%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.11%	-0.34%	+0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.74%	-1.18%	+0.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.79%	1.18%	-0.39%

Volatility

NVBW vs. FEBT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Nov ETF (NVBW) is 0.82%, while Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) has a volatility of 1.28%. This indicates that NVBW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FEBT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NVBW	FEBT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.82%	1.28%	-0.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.21%	5.98%	-1.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.97%	7.67%	-2.70%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.93%	9.75%	-2.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.93%	9.75%	-2.82%

NVBW vs. FEBT - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both NVBW and FEBT have an expense ratio of 0.74%.

Dividends

NVBW vs. FEBT - Dividend Comparison

Neither NVBW nor FEBT has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.28%
NVBW Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Nov ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NVBW and FEBT in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, NVBW and FEBT 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, NVBW or FEBT?

FEBT has higher volatility (1.28%) compared to NVBW (0.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NVBW dropped -8.41% vs FEBT's -13.19%.

Which ETF is better, NVBW or FEBT?

On 3-year performance, FEBT leads with 16.37% vs 9.32% for NVBW. Both ETFs have the same 0.74% expense ratio. On volatility, NVBW has been the lower-risk option at 0.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NVBW or FEBT?

Over the 3-year period, FEBT has performed better with a 16.37% return vs 9.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NVBW or FEBT?

NVBW and FEBT have the same expense ratio: 0.74% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NVBW or FEBT?

NVBW and FEBT have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FEBT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.67 vs 2.52), 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.