QDEC vs. BUFQ

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

QDEC (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December) and BUFQ (FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds from FT Vest. QDEC is actively managed, while BUFQ is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, QDEC returned 15.79%/yr vs 14.76%/yr for BUFQ. Their correlation of 0.93 means they have usually moved in the same direction. QDEC charges 0.90%/yr vs 1.10%/yr for BUFQ.

Performance

QDEC vs. BUFQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) and FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QDEC achieves a 8.08% return, which is significantly higher than BUFQ's 7.59% return.

QDEC

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: -0.28%
• 6M: 7.23%
• YTD: 8.08%
• 1Y: 19.47%
• 3Y*: 15.79%
• 5Y*: 9.74%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.75%

BUFQ

• 1D: 0.42%
• 1M: -0.52%
• 6M: 6.78%
• YTD: 7.59%
• 1Y: 15.45%
• 3Y*: 14.76%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 17.57%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BUFQ FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF	$4.99M	$5.12M	$6.18M
QDEC FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December	$1.40M	$874.77K	$1.05M

QDEC vs. BUFQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
QDEC FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December	8.08%	18.12%	16.40%	29.29%	-2.61%
BUFQ FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF	7.59%	14.03%	16.41%	35.51%	0.73%

Correlation

The correlation between QDEC and BUFQ is 0.94, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.94
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 16, 2022	0.93

The correlation between QDEC and BUFQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QDEC vs. BUFQ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

QDEC

QDEC Risk / Return Rank: 75
QDEC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
QDEC Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
QDEC Omega Ratio Rank: 75
QDEC Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
QDEC Martin Ratio Rank: 81

BUFQ

BUFQ Risk / Return Rank: 75
BUFQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
BUFQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
BUFQ Omega Ratio Rank: 72
BUFQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
BUFQ Martin Ratio Rank: 85

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QDEC vs. BUFQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) and FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ). 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.

	QDEC	BUFQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.71	1.58	+0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	2.35	+0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.30	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.36	2.66	-0.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.65	11.89	-1.24

QDEC vs. BUFQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QDEC Sharpe Ratio is 1.71, which is comparable to the BUFQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.58. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QDEC and BUFQ, 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

QDEC vs. BUFQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QDEC drawdown since its inception was -25.25%, which is greater than BUFQ's maximum drawdown of -15.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QDEC and BUFQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	QDEC	BUFQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.25%	-15.74%	-9.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.58%	-5.39%	-2.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.08%	-15.74%	-0.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.25%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.54%	-1.86%	+0.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.92%	-2.27%	-2.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.68%	1.21%	+0.47%

Volatility

QDEC vs. BUFQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) is 3.25%, while FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ) has a volatility of 3.45%. This indicates that QDEC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUFQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QDEC	BUFQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.25%	3.45%	-0.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.31%	7.39%	+0.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.47%	9.10%	+1.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.80%	13.27%	+1.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.53%	13.27%	+1.26%

QDEC vs. BUFQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

QDEC has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFQ's 1.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

QDEC vs. BUFQ - Dividend Comparison

Neither QDEC nor BUFQ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QDEC and BUFQ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, QDEC and BUFQ 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, QDEC or BUFQ?

BUFQ has higher volatility (3.45%) compared to QDEC (3.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QDEC dropped -25.25% vs BUFQ's -15.74%.

Which ETF is better, QDEC or BUFQ?

On 3-year performance, QDEC leads with 15.79% vs 14.76% for BUFQ. On fees, QDEC is cheaper at 0.90% per year. On volatility, QDEC has been the lower-risk option at 3.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QDEC or BUFQ?

Over the 3-year period, QDEC has performed better with a 15.79% return vs 14.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QDEC or BUFQ?

QDEC is cheaper with a 0.90% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for BUFQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QDEC or BUFQ?

QDEC and BUFQ have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between QDEC and BUFQ?

Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QDEC and 1.10% for BUFQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QDEC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.71 vs 1.58), 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.