BUFM vs PSFM
AB Moderate Buffer ETF vs Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF
Which is better, BUFM 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 | BUFM | PSFM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.69% | 0.49%Best |
| AUM | $487M | $26M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 7 | 14 |
| YTD Return | +5.26% | +12.97%Best |
| 1Y Return | +8.12% | +15.45%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +14.14% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +10.17% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 5.3%Best | 6.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -9.4%Best | -14.1% |
| $10,000 over 1.8 years | $11,744 | $11,936Best |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Pacer ETFs |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Dec 9, 2024 | Mar 31, 2021 |
Not shown on this pair: 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 12, 2026 (1.8 years).
BUFM 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 1.8 years both funds cover.
BUFM vs PSFM Performance
AB Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFM) 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 BUFM returned +8.12% while PSFM returned +15.45%. Year to date, BUFM is up 5.26% versus a gain of 12.97% 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 6.6% compared with 5.3% for BUFM. 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 -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 0.67. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BUFM 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, BUFM currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for PSFM.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BUFM 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, BUFM or PSFM?
BUFM 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, BUFM or PSFM?
Over the past year BUFM returned +8.12% vs +15.45% for PSFM, so PSFM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), BUFM annualized +9.34% vs +10.33% for PSFM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BUFM or PSFM?
PSFM has been the more volatile fund at 6.6% annualized versus 5.3% for BUFM. Worst drawdown: BUFM -9.4% vs PSFM -14.1%.
Should I hold both BUFM and PSFM?
BUFM and PSFM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.67, 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 PSFM?
BUFM yields 0.00% while PSFM yields 0.00%, so PSFM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PSFM better than BUFM?
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.