BUFM vs GMAR
AB Moderate Buffer ETF vs FT Vest US Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March
Which is better, BUFM or GMAR?
GMAR has been ahead.
BUFM has a lower expense ratio. GMAR 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 | BUFM | GMAR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.69%Best | 0.85% |
| AUM | $492M | $428M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 7 | 10 |
| YTD Return | +4.67% | +10.92%Best |
| 1Y Return | +7.70% | +13.38%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.33% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 5.3% | 4.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -9.4% | -9.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.8 years | $11,674 | $12,029Best |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | First Trust Portfolios (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Dec 9, 2024 | Mar 17, 2023 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 10, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.8 years).
BUFM vs GMAR 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 1.8 years both funds cover.
BUFM vs GMAR Performance
AB Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFM) is an ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and FT Vest US Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March (GMAR) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year BUFM returned +7.70% while GMAR returned +13.38%. Year to date, BUFM is up 4.67% versus a gain of 10.92% for GMAR.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BUFM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 5.3% compared with 4.4% for GMAR. 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 -9.4% for BUFM and -9.1% for GMAR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.72. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BUFM charges 0.69% per year while GMAR charges 0.85%. On a $10,000 position that is $69 vs $85 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BUFM currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for GMAR.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BUFM and GMAR 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, BUFM or GMAR?
BUFM has an expense ratio of 0.69% while GMAR charges 0.85%. BUFM is the cheaper option, by $16 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BUFM or GMAR?
Over the past year BUFM returned +7.70% vs +13.38% for GMAR, so GMAR leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), BUFM annualized +8.98% vs +10.81% for GMAR. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BUFM or GMAR?
BUFM has been the more volatile fund at 5.3% annualized versus 4.4% for GMAR. Worst drawdown: BUFM -9.4% vs GMAR -9.1%.
Should I hold both BUFM and GMAR?
BUFM and GMAR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.72, 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, BUFM or GMAR?
BUFM yields 0.00% while GMAR yields 0.00%, so GMAR currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is GMAR better than BUFM?
BUFM has a lower expense ratio. GMAR 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.