How the Largest Buffer ETF Providers Stack Up

Investors continue to pour money into defined outcome, or “buffer” exchange-traded funds. For their providers, however, success is not guaranteed nor equally distributed. Across $78 billion invested in 420 defined outcome ETFs available at the end of 2025, only 19 had over $1 billion in assets, and 191 had less than $50 million. The largest two providers, Innovator and First Trust, offer all of the 19 largest defined outcome ETFs, and claimed 86% of the category’s market share at the end of 2025.

Morningstar’s new Guide to Defined Outcome ETFs further unpacks the landscape and explains how investors can get the most out of them. It also features single-page overviews of the largest buffer ETF providers. Interested readers can download a copy of the full report here.

In this article, we detail those eight firms and their most popular ETFs, as well as outline where the development of new ETFs goes next. All data is as of Dec. 31, 2025.

First Trust

First trust is the largest buffer ETF provider with nearly $40 billion held across 110 defined outcome ETFs at the end of 2025. That’s roughly half of all buffer ETF assets and a quarter of the category’s available ETFs.

First Trust was among the first to offer buffer ETFs, and its subadvisor, Vest Financial, launched the first mutual fund with an explicit buffer strategy in 2016. Vest now subadvises all of First Trust’s defined outcome ETFs. Of those, 67 use a standard buffer structure, and 76 in total reference the performance of the S&P 500 index.

First Trust used its early entrance and commanding presence to charge high fees. Defined outcome ETFs from First Trust levied an average annual fee of 0.88% at the end of December 2025, the highest of the eight firms profiled here. Its largest two ETFs charge 0.95% annually.

The full report demonstrates the potential opportunity cost associated with buffer ETFs. High fees only raise the risk of meaningfully missing out on market upside.

Innovator

Innovator is the second-largest buffer ETF provider with around $27.5 billion across 135 ETFs. This powerful market position was apparently noticed by Goldman Sachs, who agreed to acquire Innovator on Dec. 1, 2025. The transaction is expected to close in second-quarter 2026.

Like First Trust, Innovator’s defined outcome business is built on standard buffer ETFs pegged to the S&P 500. It offered 84 standard buffer products at the end of 2025, with 87 in total pegged to S&P 500 returns. Milliman Financial Risk Management subadvises all but three of Innovator’s defined outcome ETFs. Milliman is a defined outcome veteran in their own right, with expertise dating back to the buffer structure’s early days in insurance products.

Innovator also uses its commanding market position to levy relatively high fees. Many of its ETFs charge 0.79% per year, and the average fee across its defined outcome lineup was 0.80% at the end of 2025.

Allianz

Allianz is an insurer and asset manager, which makes defined outcome ETFs a natural fit. Today’s defined outcome ETFs trace their roots back to insurance products and specifically fixed indexed annuities, which have long made the same promises as today’s buffer ETFs. The only difference is that they were offered through an insurance company and were usually more expensive than today’s ETF variants.

Allianz is no stranger to this structure and uses its own expertise to offer 49 defined outcome ETFs, all referencing the S&P 500. Its ETFs charge an average of 0.74% annually, a hair below the average 0.75% annual fee across the category.

AllianceBernstein

AllianceBernstein runs an efficient operation. It offers only three defined outcome ETFs, yet it was the fourth-largest defined outcome ETF provider at the end of 2025. All three ETFs charge 0.69% per year.

• AB Conservative Buffer ETF BUFC protects the first 10% of losses from SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust SPY, with a quarterly outcome period.
• AB Moderate Buffer ETF BUFM is effectively the same product as BUFC but protects the first 15% of SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust losses.
• AB International Buffer ETF BUFI protects the first 10% of losses from MSCI EAFE ETF EFA. It also has a quarterly outcome period.

These ETFs have enjoyed consistent inflows, and it appears that the AB Conservative Buffer ETF was seeded by a large internal client when it launched in early 2024. Seed money is often critical to an ETF’s longevity in any category.

Pacer

Laddered or fund-of-funds structures have been among the most successful asset gatherers in the defined outcome category. Pacer is no different. Its largest defined outcome ETF by far is the Pacer Swan SOS Fund of Funds ETF PSFF, which is a collection of 12 buffer ETFs.

Laddered or ETFs of ETFs, like the Pacer Swan SOS Fund of Funds ETF, ease some of the implementation restrictions inherent to defined outcome ETFs with an explicit outcome period. Investors may lose a little definition by allocating to a mix of 12, but they gain freedom to enter or exit the ETF when they choose. Model providers and major distribution platforms have been relatively more receptive to including laddered ETFs because of this added flexibility.

Pacer charges an average of 0.61% across its suite of defined outcome ETFs.

iShares

BlackRock said in March 2025 that it expects “Outcome ETF” assets to hit $650 billion by 2030. This is a lofty target, but it includes much more than just the defined outcome ETFs counted in our report. Still, they see promise in the space and now offer several ETFs that could benefit from a rising tide.

Across 10 ETFs pegged to iShares Core S&P 500 ETF IVV, iShares offers standard buffer ETFs, max buffer ETFs—which aim to protect 100% of iShares Core S&P 500 ETF’s downside for an outcome period—and two laddered ETFs: iShares Large Cap Moderate Quarterly laddered ETF IVVM and iShares Large Cap Deep Quarterly Laddered ETF IVVB. All 10 offerings from iShares charge 0.50% per year, notably undercutting the established category leaders.

Calamos

Calamos is unique among peers in that it does not offer any defined outcome ETFs with a standard buffer structure. Instead, its lineup of Structured Alt Protection ETFs aims to protect 100% of losses, before fees, on one of four reference assets: the S&P 500, Nasdaq 100, Russell 2000, and bitcoin. It also offers 80% and 90% floor ETFs, which effectively limit reference asset losses to 20% and 10%, respectively, before fees and over an outcome period. Calamos defined outcome ETFs levied an average annual fee of 0.69% at the end of 2025.

Tangential to the defined outcome category are other types of derivatives-based ETFs that deliver on certain objectives but lack the definition required to be classified as a “defined outcome ETF.” They do appear to meet BlackRock’s “Outcome ETF” definition, though, and include leveraged ETFs, inverse ETFs, or derivative income ETFs. Calamos has been relatively more successful here with Calamos Autocallable Income ETF CAIE already approaching $700 million, less than 10 months after its launch.

PGIM

PGIM is among the fastest growers in the defined outcome space and has been quick to build out its lineup of standard and max buffer ETFs. At the end of 2025, 38 of its 43 defined outcome ETFs were linked to the performance of the S&P 500, and 12 sought to protect 100% of index losses before fees. Similar to BlackRock, PGIM also undercut incumbents on fees, charging 0.50% annually for all of its defined outcome ETFs.

Newcomer Aptus charges the least in the category, with a 0.25% annual fee across its four buffer ETFs.

What’s Next for Defined Outcome ETFs?

Defined outcome ETFs have moved past standard buffer ETFs to different outcome structures that deliver distinct performance patterns. Different doesn’t necessarily mean better, and that hasn’t stopped issuers from launching a variety of new structures over the past three years. That trend should continue.

New ETFs might not have a set outcome period. Others might not have an explicit buffer or cap. Further developments may create defined outcome ETFs that can occupy a larger portion of an investor’s portfolio without the need to buy or sell on a specific date to achieve the advertised result. This rigidity has been a limiting factor in wider adoption, so ETF providers are eager to find a solution. Investors appreciate flexibility, and more-flexible products that still deliver some definition are gaining traction.

Regardless of structure, predictability is the main selling point for defined outcome ETFs. The week surrounding the so-called “Liberation Day” in April 2025 provided a key test for the various outcome structures. Most passed. All did better than the S&P 500 index, on average. In many regards, the results were predictable depending on the structure used.

Investors should continue to prioritize predictable, defined outcome ETFs that they are confident will behave as expected, especially when markets get choppy.