QDPL vs. BUFH
QDPL (Pacer Metaurus US Large Cap Dividend Multiplier 400 ETF) and BUFH (FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QDPL is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Pacer, while BUFH is a Defined Outcome fund managed by First Trust. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QDPL charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BUFH.
Performance
QDPL vs. BUFH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QDPL achieves a 10.40% return, which is significantly higher than BUFH's 2.45% return.
QDPL
- 1D
- -0.65%
- 1M
- 5.23%
- YTD
- 10.40%
- 6M
- 10.54%
- 1Y
- 26.37%
- 3Y*
- 20.64%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BUFH
- 1D
- -0.05%
- 1M
- 0.75%
- YTD
- 2.45%
- 6M
- 2.82%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
QDPL vs. BUFH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
QDPL Pacer Metaurus US Large Cap Dividend Multiplier 400 ETF | 10.40% | 12.25% |
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF | 2.45% | 3.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between QDPL and BUFH is 0.70, 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 | 0.70 |
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
QDPL vs. BUFH — Risk / Return Rank
QDPL
BUFH
QDPL vs. BUFH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Metaurus US Large Cap Dividend Multiplier 400 ETF (QDPL) 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.
| QDPL | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.41 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.06 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 14.37 | — | — |
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
| QDPL | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.23 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.83 | 2.91 | -2.08 |
Drawdowns
QDPL vs. BUFH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QDPL drawdown since its inception was -22.59%, which is greater than BUFH's maximum drawdown of -1.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QDPL and BUFH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QDPL | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.59% | -1.53% | -21.06% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.65% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.75% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.65% | -0.05% | -0.60% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.14% | -0.18% | -4.96% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.84% | — | — |
Volatility
QDPL vs. BUFH - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QDPL | BUFH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.69% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.00% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.89% | 2.37% | +9.52% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.01% | 2.37% | +12.64% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.01% | 2.37% | +12.64% |
QDPL vs. BUFH - Expense Ratio Comparison
QDPL has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFH's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
QDPL vs. BUFH - Dividend Comparison
QDPL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.05%, while BUFH has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
QDPL Pacer Metaurus US Large Cap Dividend Multiplier 400 ETF | 5.05% | 4.84% | 5.43% | 6.30% | 7.27% | 2.44% |
Frequently Asked Questions
QDPL and BUFH have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, QDPL is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
QDPL is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFH.
QDPL has the higher dividend yield at 5.05%, compared with 0.00% for BUFH.
QDPL is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BUFH is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QDPL and 0.95% for BUFH.
Find the right allocation for QDPL 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