UFEB vs. BUFP

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

UFEB (Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - February) and BUFP (PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds - UFEB tracks the Cboe S&P 500 30% (-5% to -35%) Buffer Protect February Series Index while BUFP tracks the S&P 500. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, UFEB returned 13.33% vs 14.81% for BUFP. Their correlation of 0.89 means they have usually moved in the same direction. UFEB charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for BUFP.

Performance

UFEB vs. BUFP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - February (UFEB) and PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UFEB achieves a 6.17% return, which is significantly lower than BUFP's 7.65% return.

UFEB

• 1D: 0.35%
• 1M: 1.13%
• 6M: 4.73%
• YTD: 6.17%
• 1Y: 13.33%
• 3Y*: 11.80%
• 5Y*: 7.23%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.32%

BUFP

• 1D: 0.50%
• 1M: 1.19%
• 6M: 6.45%
• YTD: 7.65%
• 1Y: 14.81%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.74%

*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	$1.05M	$1.21M	$1.54M
UFEB Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - February	$421.83K	$1.05M	$835.24K

UFEB vs. BUFP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
UFEB Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - February	6.17%	10.57%	5.46%
BUFP PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF	7.65%	12.92%	6.30%

Correlation

The correlation between UFEB and BUFP is 0.92, 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.	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 13, 2024	0.89

The correlation between UFEB and BUFP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

UFEB vs. BUFP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UFEB	BUFP
Technology	37.9%	37.9%
Financial Services	11.7%	11.7%
Communication Services	10.0%	10.0%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	9.6%
Healthcare	9.1%	9.1%
Industrials	8.4%	8.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	4.6%
Energy	3.0%	3.0%
Utilities	2.3%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.7%	1.7%

Return for Risk

UFEB vs. BUFP — Risk / Return Rank

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

UFEB

UFEB Risk / Return Rank: 90
UFEB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
UFEB Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
UFEB Omega Ratio Rank: 93
UFEB Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
UFEB Martin Ratio Rank: 92

BUFP

BUFP Risk / Return Rank: 90
BUFP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
BUFP Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
BUFP Omega Ratio Rank: 92
BUFP Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
BUFP Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

UFEB vs. BUFP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - February (UFEB) 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.

	UFEB	BUFP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.44	2.32	+0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.55	3.44	+0.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.47	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.43	3.37	+0.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.45	18.03	-1.58

UFEB vs. BUFP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UFEB Sharpe Ratio is 2.44, which is comparable to the BUFP Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UFEB 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

UFEB vs. BUFP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UFEB drawdown since its inception was -13.32%, which is greater than BUFP's maximum drawdown of -11.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UFEB and BUFP.

Drawdown Indicators

	UFEB	BUFP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.32%	-11.98%	-1.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.90%	-4.41%	+0.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.69%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-9.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.89%	-0.97%	-0.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.81%	0.82%	-0.01%

Volatility

UFEB vs. BUFP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - February (UFEB) is 1.45%, while PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP) has a volatility of 1.70%. This indicates that UFEB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUFP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UFEB	BUFP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.45%	1.70%	-0.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.27%	5.24%	-0.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.49%	6.44%	-0.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.35%	9.30%	-2.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.61%	9.30%	-1.69%

UFEB vs. BUFP - Expense Ratio Comparison

UFEB has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than BUFP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

UFEB vs. BUFP - Dividend Comparison

UFEB 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%
UFEB Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - February	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UFEB and BUFP in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, UFEB and BUFP move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, UFEB or BUFP?

BUFP has higher volatility (1.70%) compared to UFEB (1.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UFEB dropped -13.32% vs BUFP's -11.98%.

Which ETF is better, UFEB or BUFP?

On 1-year performance, BUFP leads with 14.81% vs 13.33% for UFEB. On fees, BUFP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, UFEB has been the lower-risk option at 1.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UFEB or BUFP?

Over the 1-year period, BUFP has performed better with a 14.81% return vs 13.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UFEB or BUFP?

BUFP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for UFEB.

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

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

What is the main difference between UFEB and BUFP?

UFEB tracks Cboe S&P 500 30% (-5% to -35%) Buffer Protect February Series Index, while BUFP tracks S&P 500. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for UFEB and 0.50% for BUFP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UFEB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.44 vs 2.32), 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.