Defined-Outcome Buffer via ETFs (Spread Structures) vs Trend Following (200-day MA)
Two published track records side by side — same data, same methodology, zero verdicts.
Defined-Outcome Buffer via ETFs (Spread Structures)
coreAn equally-weighted, monthly basket of defined-outcome / 'buffer' ETFs — the listed cousin of a vertical option spread: a put spread buffers the downside, a short call caps the upside, over an outcome period whose buffer and cap reset each fund-year. Expect less upside than a stock index, via real total-return funds, not a fabricated backtest. No edge over the index is claimed. Derivatives-based; may count as a complex product at your broker (appropriateness test).
Full track record →
Trend Following (200-day MA)
coreHolds names trading above their 200-day average; steps aside to cash when trends break down. Defensive by construction.
Full track record →
The numbers, side by side
| Defined-Outcome Buffer via ETFs (Spread Structures) | Trend Following (200-day MA) | |
|---|---|---|
| CAGR | 10.6% | 14.0% |
| Volatility (ann.) | 8.9% | 16.8% |
| Sharpe | 0.85 | 0.67 |
| Sortino | 1.23 | 0.96 |
| Max drawdown | -11.8% | -31.5% |
| Calmar | 0.90 | 0.45 |
| Simulated since | 2020-09 | 2021-06 |
Simulated backtests (up to 6 years of point-in-time data, costs included) — not live results. Methodology: here. Past performance does not predict future results.
What the data says
- Trend Following (200-day MA) posted the higher CAGR (14.0% vs 10.6%).
- Defined-Outcome Buffer via ETFs (Spread Structures) fell less at its worst (-11.8% vs -31.5%).
- Defined-Outcome Buffer via ETFs (Spread Structures) had the calmer ride (volatility 8.9% vs 16.8%).
These are facts from the published snapshots, not a recommendation — the rules differ in their risk profile. Overlay both equity curves in the interactive comparison tool.