BUFC vs PSFM
AB Conservative Buffer ETF vs Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF
Which is better, BUFC or PSFM?
PSFM has been ahead.
PSFM has a lower expense ratio. PSFM led over 1Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BUFC | PSFM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.69% | 0.49%Best |
| AUM | $1.1B | $26M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 7 | 14 |
| YTD Return | +5.56% | +13.08%Best |
| 1Y Return | +7.45% | +15.56%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.88% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +10.15% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 3.4%Best | 6.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -8.3%Best | -14.1% |
| $10,000 over 2.8 years | $12,382 | $13,955Best |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Pacer ETFs |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Dec 13, 2023 | Mar 31, 2021 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 13, 2023 to Oct 13, 2026 (2.8 years).
BUFC vs PSFM growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 2.8 years both funds cover.
BUFC vs PSFM Performance
AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) is an ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF (PSFM) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs. Over the past year BUFC returned +7.45% while PSFM returned +15.56%. Year to date, BUFC is up 5.56% versus a gain of 13.08% for PSFM.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PSFM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 6.2% compared with 3.4% for BUFC. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -8.3% for BUFC and -14.1% for PSFM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.77. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BUFC charges 0.69% per year while PSFM charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $69 vs $49 annually, a gap of $20 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BUFC currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for PSFM.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BUFC and PSFM you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BUFC or PSFM?
BUFC has an expense ratio of 0.69% while PSFM charges 0.49%. PSFM is the cheaper option, by $20 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BUFC or PSFM?
Over the past year BUFC returned +7.45% vs +15.56% for PSFM, so PSFM leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BUFC or PSFM?
PSFM has been the more volatile fund at 6.2% annualized versus 3.4% for BUFC. Worst drawdown: BUFC -8.3% vs PSFM -14.1%.
Should I hold both BUFC and PSFM?
BUFC and PSFM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.77, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, BUFC or PSFM?
BUFC yields 0.00% while PSFM yields 0.00%, so PSFM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PSFM better than BUFC?
PSFM has a lower expense ratio. PSFM led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.