PBAP vs. BUFC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PBAP (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April) and BUFC (AB Conservative Buffer ETF) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PBAP returned 13.30% vs 8.86% for BUFC. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PBAP charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for BUFC.

Performance

PBAP vs. BUFC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April (PBAP) and AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PBAP achieves a 6.70% return, which is significantly higher than BUFC's 2.84% return.

PBAP

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 1.19%
• YTD: 6.70%
• 6M: 7.49%
• 1Y: 13.30%
• 3Y*: —
• 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)

PBAP vs. BUFC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PBAP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April	6.70%	6.34%	8.88%
BUFC AB Conservative Buffer ETF	2.84%	5.50%	7.43%

Correlation

The correlation between PBAP and BUFC is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 2, 2024	0.77

The correlation between PBAP and BUFC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

PBAP vs. BUFC — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBAP

PBAP Risk / Return Rank: 98
PBAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
PBAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
PBAP Omega Ratio Rank: 98
PBAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
PBAP Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

PBAP vs. BUFC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April (PBAP) 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.

	PBAP	BUFC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	4.29	2.09	+2.19
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	7.35	2.97	+4.38
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.15	1.40	+0.75
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	11.41	2.46	+8.95
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	82.09	10.49	+71.60
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PBAP vs. BUFC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBAP Sharpe Ratio is 4.29, which is higher than the BUFC Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBAP 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

	PBAP	BUFC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.29	2.09	+2.19
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.45	1.42	+0.03

Drawdowns

PBAP vs. BUFC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBAP drawdown since its inception was -9.70%, which is greater than BUFC's maximum drawdown of -8.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBAP and BUFC.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBAP	BUFC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.70%	-8.29%	-1.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.17%	-3.62%	+2.45%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.13%	-0.12%	-0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.79%	-0.76%	-0.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.16%	0.85%	-0.69%

Volatility

PBAP vs. BUFC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April (PBAP) is 0.59%, while AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) has a volatility of 0.98%. This indicates that PBAP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUFC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PBAP	BUFC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.59%	0.98%	-0.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.00%	3.36%	-1.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.12%	4.25%	-1.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.10%	5.64%	+1.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.10%	5.64%	+1.46%

PBAP vs. BUFC - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBAP has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFC's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

PBAP vs. BUFC - Dividend Comparison

Neither PBAP nor BUFC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PBAP and BUFC in my portfolio?

PBAP and BUFC have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PBAP or BUFC?

BUFC has higher volatility (0.98%) compared to PBAP (0.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBAP dropped -9.70% vs BUFC's -8.29%.

Which ETF is better, PBAP or BUFC?

On 1-year performance, PBAP leads with 13.30% vs 8.86% for BUFC. On fees, PBAP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PBAP has been the lower-risk option at 0.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PBAP or BUFC?

Over the 1-year period, PBAP has performed better with a 13.30% return vs 8.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PBAP or BUFC?

PBAP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for BUFC.

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

PBAP and BUFC have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between PBAP and BUFC?

They also come from different issuers: PGIM and AllianceBernstein. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for PBAP and 0.69% for BUFC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PBAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.29 vs 2.09), 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.