BUFC vs NVDL
AB Conservative Buffer ETF vs GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF
Which is better, BUFC or NVDL?
NVDL has been ahead.
BUFC has a lower expense ratio. NVDL 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 | NVDL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.69%Best | 1.05% |
| AUM | $1.1B | $3.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 7 | 4 |
| YTD Return | +5.05% | +14.36%Best |
| 1Y Return | +7.23% | +19.21%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +95.77% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 3.4%Best | 77.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -8.3%Best | -67.5% |
| $10,000 over 2.8 years | $12,321 | $69,917Best |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | GraniteShares |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Dec 13, 2023 | Dec 13, 2022 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), 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 14, 2026 (2.8 years).
BUFC vs NVDL 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
BUFC vs NVDL Performance
AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) is an ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF (NVDL) is an ETF from GraniteShares. Over the past year BUFC returned +7.23% while NVDL returned +19.21%. Year to date, BUFC is up 5.05% versus a gain of 14.36% for NVDL.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
NVDL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 77.8% 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 -67.5% for NVDL. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.54. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BUFC charges 0.69% per year while NVDL charges 1.05%. On a $10,000 position that is $69 vs $105 annually, a gap of $36 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BUFC currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for NVDL.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BUFC and NVDL 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 NVDL?
BUFC has an expense ratio of 0.69% while NVDL charges 1.05%. BUFC is the cheaper option, by $36 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BUFC or NVDL?
Over the past year BUFC returned +7.23% vs +19.21% for NVDL, so NVDL leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BUFC or NVDL?
NVDL has been the more volatile fund at 77.8% annualized versus 3.4% for BUFC. Worst drawdown: BUFC -8.3% vs NVDL -67.5%.
Should I hold both BUFC and NVDL?
BUFC and NVDL have a monthly-return correlation of 0.54, 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 NVDL?
BUFC yields 0.00% while NVDL yields 0.00%, so NVDL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is NVDL better than BUFC?
BUFC has a lower expense ratio. NVDL 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.