APLY vs. PBFB
APLY (YieldMax AAPL Option Income Strategy ETF) and PBFB (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, APLY returned 36.14% vs 13.63% for PBFB. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. APLY charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PBFB.
Performance
APLY vs. PBFB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, APLY achieves a 9.41% return, which is significantly higher than PBFB's 4.68% return.
APLY
- 1D
- -0.93%
- 1M
- 9.06%
- YTD
- 9.41%
- 6M
- 5.60%
- 1Y
- 36.14%
- 3Y*
- 11.75%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PBFB
- 1D
- -0.15%
- 1M
- 1.70%
- YTD
- 4.68%
- 6M
- 5.66%
- 1Y
- 13.63%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
APLY vs. PBFB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
APLY YieldMax AAPL Option Income Strategy ETF | 9.41% | 4.69% | 22.79% |
PBFB PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February | 4.68% | 9.86% | 10.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between APLY and PBFB is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2024 | 0.49 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
APLY vs. PBFB — Risk / Return Rank
APLY
PBFB
APLY vs. PBFB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for YieldMax AAPL Option Income Strategy ETF (APLY) and PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February (PBFB). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
| APLY | PBFB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.86 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.49 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.37 | 1.61 | -0.23 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.09 | 3.61 | -0.53 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.87 | 19.17 | -11.30 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| APLY | PBFB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.02 | 2.87 | -0.86 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.68 | 1.67 | -0.99 |
Drawdowns
APLY vs. PBFB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum APLY drawdown since its inception was -30.41%, which is greater than PBFB's maximum drawdown of -8.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for APLY and PBFB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| APLY | PBFB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -30.41% | -8.65% | -21.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.76% | -3.79% | -7.97% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -30.41% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.93% | -0.15% | -0.78% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.93% | -0.60% | -6.33% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.60% | 0.71% | +3.89% |
Volatility
APLY vs. PBFB - Volatility Comparison
YieldMax AAPL Option Income Strategy ETF (APLY) has a higher volatility of 4.12% compared to PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February (PBFB) at 0.75%. This indicates that APLY's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PBFB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| APLY | PBFB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.12% | 0.75% | +3.37% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.03% | 3.71% | +9.32% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.99% | 4.77% | +13.22% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.97% | 6.39% | +14.58% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.97% | 6.39% | +14.58% |
APLY vs. PBFB - Expense Ratio Comparison
APLY has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than PBFB's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
APLY vs. PBFB - Dividend Comparison
APLY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 34.76%, while PBFB has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
APLY YieldMax AAPL Option Income Strategy ETF | 34.76% | 36.38% | 24.95% | 14.36% |
PBFB PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
APLY and PBFB have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
APLY has higher volatility (4.12%) compared to PBFB (0.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, APLY dropped -30.41% vs PBFB's -8.65%.
On 1-year performance, APLY leads with 36.14% vs 13.63% for PBFB. On fees, PBFB is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PBFB has been the lower-risk option at 0.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, APLY has performed better with a 36.14% return vs 13.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PBFB is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for APLY.
APLY has the higher dividend yield at 34.76%, compared with 0.00% for PBFB.
They also come from different issuers: YieldMax and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for APLY and 0.50% for PBFB.
PBFB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.87 vs 2.02), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for APLY and PBFB
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer