SAUG vs. BUFQ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SAUG (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Small Cap Moderate Buffer ETF - August) and BUFQ (FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SAUG is a Options Trading fund actively managed by FT Vest, while BUFQ is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ 100 Index - USD. SAUG is actively managed, while BUFQ is passively managed. Over the past year, SAUG returned 19.51% vs 21.61% for BUFQ. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SAUG charges 0.90%/yr vs 1.10%/yr for BUFQ.

Performance

SAUG vs. BUFQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest U.S. Small Cap Moderate Buffer ETF - August (SAUG) 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, SAUG achieves a 7.65% return, which is significantly lower than BUFQ's 9.53% return.

SAUG

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 1.58%
• YTD: 7.65%
• 6M: 7.95%
• 1Y: 19.51%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BUFQ

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 2.68%
• YTD: 9.53%
• 6M: 10.14%
• 1Y: 21.61%
• 3Y*: 16.99%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SAUG vs. BUFQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
SAUG FT Cboe Vest U.S. Small Cap Moderate Buffer ETF - August	7.65%	8.23%	11.08%	6.26%
BUFQ FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF	9.53%	14.03%	16.41%	7.82%

Correlation

The correlation between SAUG and BUFQ is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 22, 2023	0.62

The correlation between SAUG and BUFQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

SAUG vs. BUFQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

SAUG

SAUG Risk / Return Rank: 72
SAUG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
SAUG Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
SAUG Omega Ratio Rank: 66
SAUG Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
SAUG Martin Ratio Rank: 80

BUFQ

BUFQ Risk / Return Rank: 84
BUFQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
BUFQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
BUFQ Omega Ratio Rank: 85
BUFQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
BUFQ Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

SAUG vs. BUFQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Small Cap Moderate Buffer ETF - August (SAUG) 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.

	SAUG	BUFQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.05	2.62	-0.57
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.11	3.88	-0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.53	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.78	4.03	+0.76
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.56	20.34	-4.79
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SAUG vs. BUFQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SAUG Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is comparable to the BUFQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SAUG 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	SAUG	BUFQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.05	2.62	-0.57
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.03	1.42	-0.39

Drawdowns

SAUG vs. BUFQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SAUG drawdown since its inception was -14.62%, smaller than the maximum BUFQ drawdown of -15.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SAUG and BUFQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	SAUG	BUFQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.62%	-15.74%	+1.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.10%	-5.39%	+1.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.74%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.19%	-0.04%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.24%	-2.31%	+0.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.26%	1.06%	+0.20%

Volatility

SAUG vs. BUFQ - Volatility Comparison

FT Cboe Vest U.S. Small Cap Moderate Buffer ETF - August (SAUG) and FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ) have volatilities of 1.22% and 1.17%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SAUG	BUFQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.22%	1.17%	+0.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.41%	6.42%	-1.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.59%	8.31%	+1.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.81%	13.35%	-1.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.81%	13.35%	-1.54%

SAUG vs. BUFQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

SAUG vs. BUFQ - Dividend Comparison

Neither SAUG nor BUFQ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SAUG and BUFQ in my portfolio?

SAUG and BUFQ have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SAUG or BUFQ?

SAUG has higher volatility (1.22%) compared to BUFQ (1.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SAUG dropped -14.62% vs BUFQ's -15.74%.

Which ETF is better, SAUG or BUFQ?

On 1-year performance, BUFQ leads with 21.61% vs 19.51% for SAUG. On fees, SAUG is cheaper at 0.90% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SAUG or BUFQ?

Over the 1-year period, BUFQ has performed better with a 21.61% return vs 19.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SAUG or BUFQ?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between SAUG and BUFQ?

SAUG is categorized as Options Trading, while BUFQ is Nasdaq-100. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for SAUG and 1.10% for BUFQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BUFQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.62 vs 2.05), 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.