XJUN vs. BUFQ

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XJUN (FT Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - June) and BUFQ (FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XJUN is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, while BUFQ is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ 100 Index - USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, XJUN returned 10.19%/yr vs 16.97%/yr for BUFQ. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XJUN charges 0.85%/yr vs 1.10%/yr for BUFQ.

Performance

XJUN vs. BUFQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - June (XJUN) 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, XJUN achieves a 3.11% return, which is significantly lower than BUFQ's 9.49% return.

XJUN

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.49%
• YTD: 3.11%
• 6M: 3.77%
• 1Y: 10.38%
• 3Y*: 10.19%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BUFQ

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 2.16%
• YTD: 9.49%
• 6M: 10.07%
• 1Y: 21.34%
• 3Y*: 16.97%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XJUN vs. BUFQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
XJUN FT Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - June	3.11%	11.18%	9.96%	14.63%	5.91%
BUFQ FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF	9.49%	14.03%	16.41%	35.51%	0.75%

Correlation

The correlation between XJUN and BUFQ is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 17, 2022	0.84

The correlation between XJUN and BUFQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

XJUN vs. BUFQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XJUN	BUFQ
Technology	36.2%	54.2%
Financial Services	11.9%	0.2%
Communication Services	10.9%	15.5%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	12.2%
Healthcare	8.4%	4.2%
Industrials	8.1%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	7.6%
Energy	3.5%	0.6%
Utilities	2.3%	1.4%
Real Estate	1.9%	0.1%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.2%

Return for Risk

XJUN vs. BUFQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

XJUN

XJUN Risk / Return Rank: 93
XJUN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
XJUN Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
XJUN Omega Ratio Rank: 95
XJUN Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
XJUN Martin Ratio Rank: 95

BUFQ

BUFQ Risk / Return Rank: 84
BUFQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
BUFQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
BUFQ Omega Ratio Rank: 86
BUFQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
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.

XJUN vs. BUFQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - June (XJUN) 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.

	XJUN	BUFQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.10	2.59	+0.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.91	3.84	+1.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.72	1.52	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.29	3.98	+1.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	30.91	20.10	+10.80
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XJUN vs. BUFQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XJUN Sharpe Ratio is 3.10, which is comparable to the BUFQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XJUN 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

	XJUN	BUFQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.10	2.59	+0.52
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.20	1.42	-0.23

Drawdowns

XJUN vs. BUFQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XJUN drawdown since its inception was -9.14%, smaller than the maximum BUFQ drawdown of -15.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XJUN and BUFQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	XJUN	BUFQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.14%	-15.74%	+6.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.97%	-5.39%	+3.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.14%	-15.74%	+6.60%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.01%	-0.08%	+0.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.89%	-2.31%	+1.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.34%	1.06%	-0.72%

Volatility

XJUN vs. BUFQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - June (XJUN) is 0.27%, while FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ) has a volatility of 1.13%. This indicates that XJUN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUFQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XJUN	BUFQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.27%	1.13%	-0.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.46%	6.41%	-3.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.36%	8.28%	-4.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.18%	13.34%	-6.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.18%	13.34%	-6.16%

XJUN vs. BUFQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

XJUN has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFQ's 1.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

XJUN vs. BUFQ - Dividend Comparison

Neither XJUN nor BUFQ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XJUN and BUFQ in my portfolio?

XJUN and BUFQ have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XJUN or BUFQ?

BUFQ has higher volatility (1.13%) compared to XJUN (0.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XJUN dropped -9.14% vs BUFQ's -15.74%.

Which ETF is better, XJUN or BUFQ?

On 3-year performance, BUFQ leads with 16.97% vs 10.19% for XJUN. On fees, XJUN is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, XJUN has been the lower-risk option at 0.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XJUN or BUFQ?

Over the 3-year period, BUFQ has performed better with a 16.97% return vs 10.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XJUN or BUFQ?

XJUN is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for BUFQ.

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

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

What is the main difference between XJUN and BUFQ?

XJUN is categorized as Defined Outcome, while BUFQ is Nasdaq-100. XJUN tracks SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, while BUFQ tracks NASDAQ 100 Index - USD. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for XJUN and 1.10% for BUFQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XJUN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.10 vs 2.59), 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.