XMAR vs. BUFG

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

XMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March) and BUFG (FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF) are both Options Trading funds from FT Vest. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, XMAR returned 11.18%/yr vs 14.41%/yr for BUFG. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XMAR charges 0.85%/yr vs 1.05%/yr for BUFG.

Performance

XMAR vs. BUFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) and FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with XMAR having a 6.66% return and BUFG slightly higher at 6.72%.

XMAR

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 1.13%
• YTD: 6.66%
• 6M: 7.46%
• 1Y: 13.17%
• 3Y*: 11.18%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BUFG

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 2.54%
• YTD: 6.72%
• 6M: 7.58%
• 1Y: 18.52%
• 3Y*: 14.41%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XMAR vs. BUFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
XMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March	6.66%	10.30%	10.10%	10.30%
BUFG FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF	6.72%	12.33%	15.13%	15.28%

Correlation

The correlation between XMAR and BUFG is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2023	0.78

The correlation between XMAR and BUFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

XMAR vs. BUFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XMAR	BUFG
Technology	36.2%	36.2%
Financial Services	11.9%	11.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	10.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	8.4%
Industrials	8.1%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.9%
Energy	3.5%	3.5%
Utilities	2.3%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.8%

Return for Risk

XMAR vs. BUFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMAR

XMAR Risk / Return Rank: 97
XMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
XMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
XMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 98
XMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
XMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

BUFG

BUFG Risk / Return Rank: 75
BUFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
BUFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
BUFG Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BUFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
BUFG Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

XMAR vs. BUFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) and FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG). 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.

	XMAR	BUFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	4.40	2.44	+1.96
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	7.61	3.52	+4.09
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.22	1.47	+0.75
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.04	3.26	+5.78
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	69.02	17.20	+51.82
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XMAR vs. BUFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMAR Sharpe Ratio is 4.40, which is higher than the BUFG Sharpe Ratio of 2.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMAR and BUFG, 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

	XMAR	BUFG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.40	2.44	+1.96
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.13	0.74	+1.39

Drawdowns

XMAR vs. BUFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMAR drawdown since its inception was -7.29%, smaller than the maximum BUFG drawdown of -17.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMAR and BUFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	XMAR	BUFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-7.29%	-17.62%	+10.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.48%	-5.74%	+4.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.29%	-13.20%	+5.91%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.15%	0.00%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.30%	-3.62%	+3.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.19%	1.09%	-0.90%

Volatility

XMAR vs. BUFG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) is 0.66%, while FT Cboe Vest Buffered Allocation Growth ETF (BUFG) has a volatility of 1.14%. This indicates that XMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XMAR	BUFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.66%	1.14%	-0.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.40%	5.82%	-3.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.01%	7.63%	-4.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.56%	11.84%	-6.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.56%	11.84%	-6.28%

XMAR vs. BUFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMAR has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFG's 1.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMAR vs. BUFG - Dividend Comparison

Neither XMAR nor BUFG has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XMAR and BUFG in my portfolio?

XMAR and BUFG have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XMAR or BUFG?

BUFG has higher volatility (1.14%) compared to XMAR (0.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XMAR dropped -7.29% vs BUFG's -17.62%.

Which ETF is better, XMAR or BUFG?

On 3-year performance, BUFG leads with 14.41% vs 11.18% for XMAR. On fees, XMAR is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, XMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XMAR or BUFG?

Over the 3-year period, BUFG has performed better with a 14.41% return vs 11.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XMAR or BUFG?

XMAR is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for BUFG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, XMAR or BUFG?

XMAR and BUFG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between XMAR and BUFG?

Their fees differ too: 0.85% for XMAR and 1.05% for BUFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.40 vs 2.44), 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.