SEPT vs. FBUF
SEPT (AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer10 Sep ETF) and FBUF (Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, SEPT returned 20.24% vs 20.32% for FBUF. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SEPT charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for FBUF.
Performance
SEPT vs. FBUF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SEPT achieves a 6.43% return, which is significantly higher than FBUF's 5.45% return.
SEPT
- 1D
- 0.01%
- 1M
- 2.17%
- YTD
- 6.43%
- 6M
- 7.24%
- 1Y
- 20.24%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FBUF
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- 2.95%
- YTD
- 5.45%
- 6M
- 6.65%
- 1Y
- 20.32%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
SEPT vs. FBUF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
SEPT AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer10 Sep ETF | 6.43% | 14.95% | 9.40% |
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF | 5.45% | 14.01% | 10.13% |
Correlation
The correlation between SEPT and FBUF is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 12, 2024 | 0.90 |
The correlation between SEPT and FBUF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.90 - 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
SEPT vs. FBUF — Risk / Return Rank
SEPT
FBUF
SEPT vs. FBUF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer10 Sep ETF (SEPT) and Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF). 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.
| SEPT | FBUF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.71 | 2.72 | -0.01 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.90 | 3.67 | +0.23 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.54 | 1.55 | -0.01 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.80 | 3.66 | +0.14 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 19.36 | 16.38 | +2.98 |
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
| SEPT | FBUF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.71 | 2.72 | -0.01 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.60 | 1.48 | +0.13 |
Drawdowns
SEPT vs. FBUF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SEPT drawdown since its inception was -12.83%, which is greater than FBUF's maximum drawdown of -11.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SEPT and FBUF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SEPT | FBUF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -12.83% | -11.09% | -1.74% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.39% | -5.61% | +0.22% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.09% | +0.09% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.09% | -1.38% | +0.29% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.06% | 1.25% | -0.19% |
Volatility
SEPT vs. FBUF - Volatility Comparison
AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer10 Sep ETF (SEPT) has a higher volatility of 1.19% compared to Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF) at 1.10%. This indicates that SEPT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FBUF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SEPT | FBUF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.19% | 1.10% | +0.09% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.61% | 5.37% | +0.24% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 7.49% | 7.49% | 0.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.87% | 9.55% | +0.32% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.87% | 9.55% | +0.32% |
SEPT vs. FBUF - Expense Ratio Comparison
SEPT has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than FBUF's 0.48% expense ratio.
Dividends
SEPT vs. FBUF - Dividend Comparison
SEPT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FBUF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.62%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF | 0.62% | 0.64% | 0.54% |
SEPT AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer10 Sep ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
SEPT and FBUF have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
SEPT has higher volatility (1.19%) compared to FBUF (1.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SEPT dropped -12.83% vs FBUF's -11.09%.
On 1-year performance, FBUF leads with 20.32% vs 20.24% for SEPT. On fees, FBUF is cheaper at 0.48% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, FBUF has performed better with a 20.32% return vs 20.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FBUF is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for SEPT.
FBUF has the higher dividend yield at 0.62%, compared with 0.00% for SEPT.
They also come from different issuers: Allianz and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for SEPT and 0.48% for FBUF.
FBUF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.72 vs 2.71), 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.
Find the right allocation for SEPT and FBUF
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