PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RVER vs. BUFH
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RVER vs. BUFH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Trenchless Fund ETF (RVER) and FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RVER achieves a 11.63% return, which is significantly higher than BUFH's 2.81% return.


RVER

1D
-2.44%
1M
-0.94%
6M
3.17%
YTD
11.63%
1Y
10.79%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

BUFH

1D
-0.07%
1M
0.49%
6M
2.29%
YTD
2.81%
1Y
6.16%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RVER vs. BUFH - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025
RVER
Trenchless Fund ETF
11.63%3.37%
BUFH
FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF
2.81%3.81%

Correlation

The correlation between RVER and BUFH is 0.60, 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

0.60

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2025

0.59

The correlation between RVER and BUFH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

RVER vs. BUFH — Risk / Return Rank

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

RVER
RVER Risk / Return Rank: 1717
Overall Rank
RVER Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1818
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RVER Sortino Ratio Rank: 1818
Sortino Ratio Rank
RVER Omega Ratio Rank: 1717
Omega Ratio Rank
RVER Calmar Ratio Rank: 1616
Calmar Ratio Rank
RVER Martin Ratio Rank: 1717
Martin Ratio Rank

BUFH
BUFH Risk / Return Rank: 9393
Overall Rank
BUFH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BUFH Sortino Ratio Rank: 9595
Sortino Ratio Rank
BUFH Omega Ratio Rank: 9595
Omega Ratio Rank
BUFH Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
BUFH Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

RVER vs. BUFH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Trenchless Fund ETF (RVER) 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.

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.


RVERBUFHDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.15

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-3.29

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.10

1.58

-0.49

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.50

4.04

-3.54

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.31

18.99

-17.68

RVER vs. BUFH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RVER Sharpe Ratio is 0.46, which is lower than the BUFH Sharpe Ratio of 2.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RVER and BUFH, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

RVER vs. BUFH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RVER drawdown since its inception was -26.21%, which is greater than BUFH's maximum drawdown of -1.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RVER and BUFH.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RVERBUFHDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-26.21%

-1.53%

-24.68%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-21.61%

-1.53%

-20.08%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.25%

-0.07%

-8.18%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.00%

-0.17%

-5.83%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.23%

0.33%

+7.90%

Volatility

RVER vs. BUFH - Volatility Comparison

Trenchless Fund ETF (RVER) has a higher volatility of 6.15% compared to FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH) at 0.58%. This indicates that RVER's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BUFH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RVERBUFHDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.15%

0.58%

+5.57%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

19.27%

1.97%

+17.30%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

23.51%

2.38%

+21.13%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

26.30%

2.34%

+23.96%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.30%

2.34%

+23.96%

RVER vs. BUFH - Expense Ratio Comparison

RVER has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFH's 0.95% expense ratio.


Dividends

RVER vs. BUFH - Dividend Comparison

RVER's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.53%, while BUFH has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM2025
BUFH
FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF
0.00%0.00%
RVER
Trenchless Fund ETF
1.53%1.71%

Frequently Asked Questions


RVER and BUFH have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

RVER has higher volatility (6.15%) compared to BUFH (0.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RVER dropped -26.21% vs BUFH's -1.53%.

On 1-year performance, RVER leads with 10.79% vs 6.16% for BUFH. On fees, RVER is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, BUFH has been the lower-risk option at 0.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, RVER has performed better with a 10.79% return vs 6.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RVER is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFH.

RVER has the higher dividend yield at 1.53%, compared with 0.00% for BUFH.

RVER is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BUFH is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: River1 and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for RVER and 0.95% for BUFH.

BUFH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.61 vs 0.46), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RVER 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