QMNV vs. BUFP

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

QMNV (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - November) and BUFP (PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. QMNV is actively managed, while BUFP is passively managed. Over the past year, QMNV returned 15.95% vs 14.24% for BUFP. Their correlation of 0.87 means they have usually moved in the same direction. QMNV charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for BUFP.

Performance

QMNV vs. BUFP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - November (QMNV) and PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with QMNV having a 6.84% return and BUFP slightly higher at 7.12%.

QMNV

• 1D: 0.42%
• 1M: 0.21%
• 6M: 6.26%
• YTD: 6.84%
• 1Y: 15.95%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 14.26%

BUFP

• 1D: 0.44%
• 1M: 0.69%
• 6M: 6.15%
• YTD: 7.12%
• 1Y: 14.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.53%

*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)
BUFP PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF	$1.13M	$1.22M	$1.53M
QMNV FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - November	$68.28K	$87.65K	$212.61K

QMNV vs. BUFP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QMNV FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - November	6.84%	15.74%	1.41%
BUFP PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF	7.12%	12.92%	0.56%

Correlation

The correlation between QMNV and BUFP is 0.89, 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.	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 18, 2024	0.87

The correlation between QMNV and BUFP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QMNV vs. BUFP — Risk / Return Rank

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

QMNV

QMNV Risk / Return Rank: 85
QMNV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
QMNV Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
QMNV Omega Ratio Rank: 89
QMNV Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
QMNV Martin Ratio Rank: 87

BUFP

BUFP Risk / Return Rank: 88
BUFP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
BUFP Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
BUFP Omega Ratio Rank: 90
BUFP Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
BUFP Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

QMNV vs. BUFP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - November (QMNV) 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.

	QMNV	BUFP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	2.06	+0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.06	3.03	+0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.41	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.65	3.02	-0.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.86	16.13	-3.27

QMNV vs. BUFP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QMNV Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is comparable to the BUFP Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QMNV 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

QMNV vs. BUFP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QMNV drawdown since its inception was -12.82%, which is greater than BUFP's maximum drawdown of -11.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMNV and BUFP.

Drawdown Indicators

	QMNV	BUFP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.82%	-11.98%	-0.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.73%	-4.41%	-1.32%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.60%	-0.12%	-0.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.24%	-0.97%	-0.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.18%	0.83%	+0.35%

Volatility

QMNV vs. BUFP - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - November (QMNV) has a higher volatility of 2.33% compared to PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP) at 1.63%. This indicates that QMNV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BUFP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QMNV	BUFP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.33%	1.63%	+0.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.25%	5.23%	+1.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.20%	6.48%	+0.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.84%	9.30%	+1.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.84%	9.30%	+1.54%

QMNV vs. BUFP - Expense Ratio Comparison

QMNV has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than BUFP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

QMNV vs. BUFP - Dividend Comparison

QMNV 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%
QMNV FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - November	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QMNV and BUFP in my portfolio?

QMNV and BUFP have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QMNV or BUFP?

QMNV has higher volatility (2.33%) compared to BUFP (1.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QMNV dropped -12.82% vs BUFP's -11.98%.

Which ETF is better, QMNV or BUFP?

On 1-year performance, QMNV leads with 15.95% vs 14.24% for BUFP. On fees, BUFP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, BUFP has been the lower-risk option at 1.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QMNV or BUFP?

Over the 1-year period, QMNV has performed better with a 15.95% return vs 14.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QMNV or BUFP?

BUFP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMNV.

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

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

What is the main difference between QMNV and BUFP?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QMNV and 0.50% for BUFP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMNV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs 2.06), 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.