Skip to content

BUFC vs GMAR

AB Conservative Buffer ETF

BUFCBNasdaq

FT Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March

GMARCCboe

Overlap

Expense ratio

BUFC −0.16pt a year

BUFC0.69%GMAR0.85%

Avg volume · 30D

BUFC 1.6×the volume

BUFC48.2KGMAR29.8K

BUFC vs GMAR Performance

Nov 7, 2025 – Nov 9, 2026

+5.9%BUFC+12.5%GMAR

Nov 7, 2025 to Nov 9, 2026. BUFC +5.9%. GMAR +12.5%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.0%2.5%10%Nov 2025May 2026Nov 2026
Expense ratio
BUFC 0.69%, better
GMAR 0.85%
Fund size
BUFC $1.09B
GMAR $421M
1Y total return
BUFC +5.9%
GMAR +12.5%, better
Holdings
BUFC 5
GMAR 3
Avg volume (30D)
BUFC 48.2K sh, better
GMAR 29.8K sh
NAV per share
BUFC $42.98
GMAR $44.92
52W range

ETF.net Grade

BUFC: Cost 57, Risk 47, Mission not scored, Tradability 60, Holdings not scored, Durability 74. GMAR: Cost 13, Risk 76, Mission not scored, Tradability 57, Holdings 59, Durability 75.
Pillar letters and Scores for BUFC, GMAR, with each pillar’s weight
PillarBUFCGMAR
Cost30% weightB57HigherF13
Mission25% weightNot scoredNot scored
Risk15% weightC47A76Higher
Tradability15% weightB60HigherB57
Holdings10% weightNot scoredB59
Durability5% weightA74A75Higher

Rank among S&P 500 Buffer 15% funds

Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Same Category. BUFC and GMAR are both graded against the same 51 S&P 500 Buffer 15% funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

S&P 500 Buffer 15%⁠

Category · 51 funds
See all 51 ›

BUFC ranks 4th and GMAR 20th of 51 funds in the S&P 500 Buffer 15% Category.

  1. Rank 1BPSMOPacer Swan SOS Moderate (October) ETFScore 63
  2. Rank 2BPSMJPacer Swan SOS Moderate (July) ETFScore 60
  3. Rank 3BPSMRPacer Swan SOS Moderate (April) ETFScore 57
  4. Rank 4BBUFCAB Conservative Buffer ETFScore 56
  5. Rank 5BPSEPInnovator U.S. Equity Power Buffer ETFScore 55
  6. Rank 20CGJUNFT Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - JuneScore 44
  7. Rank 20CGMARFT Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - MarchScore 44
  8. Rank 20CGNOVFT Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - NovemberScore 44

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

BUFCBAB Conservative Buffer ETF

GMARCFT Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March

In short

BUFC Most buffer funds lock you into a 12-month outcome period. BUFC resets every three months, targeting 15% downside protection against the S&P 500 with roughly 3% of the upside per period. Deep cushion, short leash.

GMAR A March-dated buffer fund: it absorbs the first 15% of an SPY price drop over each one-year outcome period, and in exchange your upside stops at a cap First Trust resets every March.

Stated mandate

BUFC The Fund is an actively managed equity ETF seeking conservative capital appreciation with potential partial downside protection. It uses options to establish an upside cap and downside protection over rolling three-month periods, targeting 15% downside protection and about 3% upside participation to the S&P 500.

GMAR The Fund seeks to match the price return of the State Street® SPDR® S&P 500® ETF Trust up to a 14.10% cap while protecting against the first 15% of losses during the specified outcome period.

Why people hold it

  • BUFC Uses options to target 15% downside protection against the S&P 500 over rolling three-month periods, so the cushion resets four times a year instead of once.alliancebernstein.com
  • At 0.69%, it costs less than Innovator's 0.79% Power Buffer funds (PJUL, PJAN, POCT) and less than the typical fund in its buffer cohort.
  • Actively managed rather than pinned to a calendar index series, running since 2023, and among the stronger implementations in its buffer peer group.
  • GMAR The cushion is 15%, one of the deeper standard buffers out there: the fund is built to eat the first 15% of the reference ETF's price decline over the outcome period.ftportfolios.com
  • March is just one door. Twelve siblings (GJAN through GDEC) run the same 15% recipe on different start months, so entry dates can be laddered rather than guessed.ftportfolios.com
  • The rules are printed before you commit: buffer size, reference asset (SPY price return) and the exact outcome start and end dates all come from First Trust's own documents.ftportfolios.com

Worth knowing

  • BUFC The price of that deep cushion: upside participation is targeted near 3% per three-month period, so big rallies mostly pass you by.
  • Protection is partial and period-based. Losses past the targeted 15% pass through, and buying mid-period shifts your effective buffer and cap.alliancebernstein.com
  • Thinly traded for its size, so spreads and limit orders deserve attention.
  • GMAR The 0.85% fee runs above the middle of the buffer peer group, and a laddered alternative like BUFF charges 0.10% for a broadly similar job.
  • It tracks SPY's price return, so dividends sit outside the deal, and there are no fund distributions either. Buy or sell mid-period and you get only part of the buffer and cap.
  • Volume is thin next to the headline buffer funds, so the bid-ask spread is worth a look before trading.

Full BUFC profile⁠

Full GMAR profile⁠

BUFC vs GMAR Holdings

How we measure overlap

Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.

BUFC vs GMAR Cost

Overpaying GMAR vs BUFC

$2,770

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

  • BUFC 0.69%

    $13,429

  • GMAR 0.85%

    $16,199

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • BUFC 0.69%
  • GMAR 0.85%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$5K$10K$15K$20K051015202530GMAR $16,199BUFC $13,429

Year by year

YearBUFCGMAROverpaying
10$1,232$1,508$276
20$4,697$5,706$1,009
30$13,429$16,199$2,770

Expense ratio

  • 0.69%BUFC, cheaper
  • 0.85%GMAR
  • Middle half of S&P 500 Buffer 15% funds
  • Median 0.79%

BUFC 17th cheapest of 51 funds

GMAR 37th cheapest of 51 funds

BUFC vs GMAR Dividends

Last 12 months to Nov 9, 2026
Payout (12M)
BUFC None
GMAR None

Distribution history

BUFCAll BUFC payments⁠

No distribution history available.

GMARAll GMAR payments⁠

No distribution history available.

BUFC vs GMAR Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
BUFC 3.4%since Jan 2024GMAR 4.8%
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
BUFC 0.82since Jan 2024GMAR 1.64
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
BUFC −8.3%since Dec 2023GMAR −9.1%since Mar 2023
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
BUFC 0.26GMAR 0.34

Popular comparisons

  • BUFCBvsPSMOB

    AB Conservative Buffer ETF · Pacer Swan SOS Moderate (October) ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.69% · 0.49%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • GMARCvsPSMOB

    FT Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March · Pacer Swan SOS Moderate (October) ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.85% · 0.49%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • BUFCBvsPSMJB

    AB Conservative Buffer ETF · Pacer Swan SOS Moderate (July) ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.69% · 0.49%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • GMARCvsPSMJB

    FT Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March · Pacer Swan SOS Moderate (July) ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.85% · 0.49%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • BUFCBvsPSMRB

    AB Conservative Buffer ETF · Pacer Swan SOS Moderate (April) ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.69% · 0.49%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • GMARCvsPSMRB

    FT Vest U.S. Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - March · Pacer Swan SOS Moderate (April) ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.85% · 0.49%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.