VIXM vs. BFEB

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

VIXM (ProShares VIX Mid-Term Futures ETF) and BFEB (Innovator S&P 500 Buffer ETF - February) are both exchange-traded funds - VIXM is a Volatility fund tracking the S&P 500 VIX Mid-Term Futures Index, while BFEB is a Options Trading fund tracking the Cboe S&P 500 Buffer Protect Index February Series. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, VIXM returned -14.31%/yr vs 11.49%/yr for BFEB. At a correlation of -0.71, they often move in opposite directions. VIXM charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for BFEB.

Performance

VIXM vs. BFEB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares VIX Mid-Term Futures ETF (VIXM) and Innovator S&P 500 Buffer ETF - February (BFEB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, VIXM achieves a -6.22% return, which is significantly lower than BFEB's 8.81% return.

VIXM

• 1D: -0.42%
• 1M: -6.04%
• 6M: -4.34%
• YTD: -6.22%
• 1Y: -14.41%
• 3Y*: -10.10%
• 5Y*: -14.31%
• 10Y*: -11.68%

BFEB

• 1D: 0.33%
• 1M: 1.35%
• 6M: 7.62%
• YTD: 8.81%
• 1Y: 17.61%
• 3Y*: 15.37%
• 5Y*: 11.49%
• 10Y*: —

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

VIXM vs. BFEB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
VIXM ProShares VIX Mid-Term Futures ETF	-6.22%	5.60%	-13.67%	-44.83%	-0.69%	-16.70%	73.52%
BFEB Innovator S&P 500 Buffer ETF - February	8.81%	12.99%	17.58%	22.35%	-6.76%	18.05%	6.01%

Correlation

The correlation between VIXM and BFEB is -0.73, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.69
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2020	-0.71

The correlation between VIXM and BFEB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.73 to -0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

VIXM vs. BFEB — Risk / Return Rank

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

VIXM

VIXM Risk / Return Rank: 3
VIXM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
VIXM Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
VIXM Omega Ratio Rank: 3
VIXM Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
VIXM Martin Ratio Rank: 1

BFEB

BFEB Risk / Return Rank: 81
BFEB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
BFEB Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
BFEB Omega Ratio Rank: 85
BFEB Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
BFEB Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

VIXM vs. BFEB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares VIX Mid-Term Futures ETF (VIXM) and Innovator S&P 500 Buffer ETF - February (BFEB). 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.

	VIXM	BFEB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.78	2.12	-2.90
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.99	3.02	-4.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.88	1.40	-0.52
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.75	2.76	-3.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.55	13.65	-15.20

VIXM vs. BFEB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current VIXM Sharpe Ratio is -0.78, which is lower than the BFEB Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of VIXM and BFEB, 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

VIXM vs. BFEB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum VIXM drawdown since its inception was -96.23%, which is greater than BFEB's maximum drawdown of -27.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for VIXM and BFEB.

Drawdown Indicators

	VIXM	BFEB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-96.23%	-27.20%	-69.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.16%	-6.41%	-12.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-37.26%	-13.82%	-23.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-63.40%	-14.84%	-48.56%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-72.55%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-96.07%	-0.14%	-95.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-81.60%	-2.75%	-78.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.30%	1.29%	+8.01%

Volatility

VIXM vs. BFEB - Volatility Comparison

ProShares VIX Mid-Term Futures ETF (VIXM) has a higher volatility of 3.38% compared to Innovator S&P 500 Buffer ETF - February (BFEB) at 2.34%. This indicates that VIXM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BFEB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	VIXM	BFEB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.38%	2.34%	+1.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.99%	6.85%	+7.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.62%	8.34%	+10.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.60%	11.45%	+19.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.63%	14.20%	+18.43%

VIXM vs. BFEB - Expense Ratio Comparison

VIXM has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than BFEB's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

VIXM vs. BFEB - Dividend Comparison

Neither VIXM nor BFEB has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both VIXM and BFEB in my portfolio?

VIXM and BFEB have a correlation of -0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, VIXM or BFEB?

VIXM has higher volatility (3.38%) compared to BFEB (2.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, VIXM dropped -96.23% vs BFEB's -27.20%.

Which ETF is better, VIXM or BFEB?

On 5-year performance, BFEB leads with 11.49% vs -14.31% for VIXM. On fees, BFEB is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, BFEB has been the lower-risk option at 2.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, VIXM or BFEB?

Over the 5-year period, BFEB has performed better with a 11.49% return vs -14.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, VIXM or BFEB?

BFEB is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for VIXM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, VIXM or BFEB?

VIXM and BFEB have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between VIXM and BFEB?

VIXM is categorized as Volatility, while BFEB is Options Trading. VIXM tracks S&P 500 VIX Mid-Term Futures Index, while BFEB tracks Cboe S&P 500 Buffer Protect Index February Series. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for VIXM and 0.79% for BFEB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BFEB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs -0.78), 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.