QBSF vs. BUFP

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

QBSF (AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF) and BUFP (PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. QBSF is actively managed, while BUFP is passively managed. Over the past year, QBSF returned 7.67% vs 14.07% for BUFP. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QBSF charges 0.64%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for BUFP.

Performance

QBSF vs. BUFP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF (QBSF) and PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QBSF achieves a 3.01% return, which is significantly lower than BUFP's 6.76% return.

QBSF

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 0.50%
• 6M: 2.66%
• YTD: 3.01%
• 1Y: 7.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BUFP

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 1.12%
• 6M: 5.89%
• YTD: 6.76%
• 1Y: 14.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QBSF vs. BUFP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QBSF AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF	3.01%	4.79%
BUFP PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF	6.76%	7.46%

Correlation

The correlation between QBSF and BUFP is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2025	0.79

The correlation between QBSF and BUFP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QBSF vs. BUFP — Risk / Return Rank

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

QBSF

QBSF Risk / Return Rank: 94
QBSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
QBSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
QBSF Omega Ratio Rank: 96
QBSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
QBSF Martin Ratio Rank: 93

BUFP

BUFP Risk / Return Rank: 87
BUFP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
BUFP Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
BUFP Omega Ratio Rank: 90
BUFP Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
BUFP Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

QBSF vs. BUFP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF (QBSF) and PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	QBSF	BUFP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.86	2.22	+0.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.40	3.28	+1.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.63	1.45	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.86	3.20	+1.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.63	17.37	+1.27

QBSF vs. BUFP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QBSF Sharpe Ratio is 2.86, which is comparable to the BUFP Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QBSF and BUFP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

QBSF vs. BUFP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QBSF drawdown since its inception was -1.58%, smaller than the maximum BUFP drawdown of -11.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QBSF and BUFP.

Drawdown Indicators

	QBSF	BUFP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.58%	-11.98%	+10.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.58%	-4.41%	+2.83%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.17%	-0.34%	+0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.20%	-0.98%	+0.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.41%	0.81%	-0.40%

Volatility

QBSF vs. BUFP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF (QBSF) is 0.67%, while PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP) has a volatility of 1.81%. This indicates that QBSF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUFP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QBSF	BUFP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.67%	1.81%	-1.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.91%	5.17%	-3.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.70%	6.36%	-3.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.68%	9.37%	-6.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.68%	9.37%	-6.69%

QBSF vs. BUFP - Expense Ratio Comparison

QBSF has a 0.64% expense ratio, which is higher than BUFP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

QBSF vs. BUFP - Dividend Comparison

QBSF has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BUFP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BUFP PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF	0.01%	0.01%	0.02%
QBSF AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QBSF and BUFP in my portfolio?

QBSF and BUFP have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QBSF or BUFP?

BUFP has higher volatility (1.81%) compared to QBSF (0.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QBSF dropped -1.58% vs BUFP's -11.98%.

Which ETF is better, QBSF or BUFP?

On 1-year performance, BUFP leads with 14.07% vs 7.67% for QBSF. On fees, BUFP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, QBSF has been the lower-risk option at 0.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QBSF or BUFP?

Over the 1-year period, BUFP has performed better with a 14.07% return vs 7.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QBSF or BUFP?

BUFP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.64% for QBSF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QBSF or BUFP?

BUFP has the higher dividend yield at 0.01%, compared with 0.00% for QBSF.

What is the main difference between QBSF and BUFP?

They also come from different issuers: AllianzIM and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.64% for QBSF and 0.50% for BUFP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QBSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.86 vs 2.22), 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.