FEBU vs QBSF
AllianzIM US Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Feb ETF vs AllianzIM US Equity Buffer15 ETF
Which is better, FEBU or QBSF?
FEBU has been ahead.
QBSF has a lower expense ratio. FEBU 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 | FEBU | QBSF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.74% | 0.64%Best |
| AUM | $52M | $63M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 12 | 15 |
| YTD Return | +10.21%Best | +5.33% |
| 1Y Return | +11.31%Best | +7.62% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 8.5% | 2.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -6.0% | -1.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.3 years | $11,925Best | $11,060 |
| Fund Family | AllianzIM | AllianzIM |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Option Writing | Option Writing |
| Inception | Jan 31, 2025 | Jun 30, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 1, 2025 to Oct 9, 2026 (1.3 years).
FEBU vs QBSF 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 1.3 years both funds cover.
FEBU vs QBSF Performance
AllianzIM US Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Feb ETF (FEBU) is an ETF from AllianzIM and AllianzIM US Equity Buffer15 ETF (QBSF) is an ETF from AllianzIM. Over the past year FEBU returned +11.31% while QBSF returned +7.62%. Year to date, FEBU is up 10.21% versus a gain of 5.33% for QBSF.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FEBU has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 8.5% compared with 2.1% for QBSF. 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 -6.0% for FEBU and -1.6% for QBSF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.81. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FEBU charges 0.74% per year while QBSF charges 0.64%. On a $10,000 position that is $74 vs $64 annually, a gap of $10 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FEBU currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for QBSF.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of FEBU and QBSF 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, FEBU or QBSF?
FEBU has an expense ratio of 0.74% while QBSF charges 0.64%. QBSF is the cheaper option, by $10 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FEBU or QBSF?
Over the past year FEBU returned +11.31% vs +7.62% for QBSF, so FEBU leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), FEBU annualized +14.50% vs +8.06% for QBSF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FEBU or QBSF?
FEBU has been the more volatile fund at 8.5% annualized versus 2.1% for QBSF. Worst drawdown: FEBU -6.0% vs QBSF -1.6%.
Should I hold both FEBU and QBSF?
FEBU and QBSF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.81, 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, FEBU or QBSF?
FEBU yields 0.00% while QBSF yields 0.00%, so QBSF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QBSF better than FEBU?
QBSF has a lower expense ratio. FEBU 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.