BUFC vs TUG
AB Conservative Buffer ETF vs STF Tactical Growth ETF
Which is better, BUFC or TUG?
TUG has been ahead.
TUG has a lower expense ratio. TUG 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 | TUG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.69% | 0.65%Best |
| AUM | $1.1B | $35M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.88% |
| Holdings | 7 | 204 |
| YTD Return | +5.05% | +19.37%Best |
| 1Y Return | +7.23% | +22.88%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +22.50% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 3.4%Best | 16.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -8.3%Best | -22.3% |
| $10,000 over 2.8 years | $12,321 | $17,323Best |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Shelton Capital Management |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Dec 13, 2023 | May 18, 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 TUG 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 2.8 years both funds cover.
BUFC vs TUG Performance
AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) is an ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and STF Tactical Growth ETF (TUG) is an ETF from Shelton Capital Management. Over the past year BUFC returned +7.23% while TUG returned +22.88%. Year to date, BUFC is up 5.05% versus a gain of 19.37% for TUG.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
TUG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.3% 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 -22.3% for TUG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.77. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BUFC charges 0.69% per year while TUG charges 0.65%. On a $10,000 position that is $69 vs $65 annually, a gap of $4 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BUFC currently yields 0.00% against 1.88% for TUG.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BUFC and TUG 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 TUG?
BUFC has an expense ratio of 0.69% while TUG charges 0.65%. TUG is the cheaper option, by $4 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BUFC or TUG?
Over the past year BUFC returned +7.23% vs +22.88% for TUG, so TUG leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BUFC or TUG?
TUG has been the more volatile fund at 16.3% annualized versus 3.4% for BUFC. Worst drawdown: BUFC -8.3% vs TUG -22.3%.
Should I hold both BUFC and TUG?
BUFC and TUG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.77, 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 TUG?
BUFC yields 0.00% while TUG yields 1.88%, so TUG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TUG better than BUFC?
TUG has a lower expense ratio. TUG 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.