APRP vs. XMAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

APRP (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - April) and XMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, APRP returned 16.56% vs 12.10% for XMAR. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. APRP charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for XMAR.

Performance

APRP vs. XMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - April (APRP) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, APRP achieves a 8.85% return, which is significantly higher than XMAR's 6.44% return.

APRP

• 1D: -0.41%
• 1M: 0.47%
• YTD: 8.85%
• 6M: 8.96%
• 1Y: 16.56%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XMAR

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 0.12%
• YTD: 6.44%
• 6M: 6.54%
• 1Y: 12.10%
• 3Y*: 10.80%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

APRP vs. XMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
APRP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - April	8.85%	7.80%	10.06%
XMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March	6.44%	10.30%	7.67%

Correlation

The correlation between APRP and XMAR is 0.85, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2024	0.88

The correlation between APRP and XMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

APRP vs. XMAR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

APRP

APRP Risk / Return Rank: 97
APRP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
APRP Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
APRP Omega Ratio Rank: 97
APRP Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
APRP Martin Ratio Rank: 98

XMAR

XMAR Risk / Return Rank: 97
XMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
XMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
XMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 98
XMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
XMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

APRP vs. XMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - April (APRP) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	APRP	XMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.73	3.98	-0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	6.16	6.68	-0.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.90	2.06	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	11.79	8.22	+3.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	59.37	56.87	+2.50

APRP vs. XMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current APRP Sharpe Ratio is 3.73, which is comparable to the XMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of APRP and XMAR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

APRP vs. XMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum APRP drawdown since its inception was -13.66%, which is greater than XMAR's maximum drawdown of -7.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for APRP and XMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	APRP	XMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.66%	-7.29%	-6.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.41%	-1.48%	+0.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.29%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.66%	-0.42%	-0.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.22%	-0.30%	-0.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.28%	0.21%	+0.07%

Volatility

APRP vs. XMAR - Volatility Comparison

PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - April (APRP) has a higher volatility of 1.82% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) at 1.08%. This indicates that APRP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	APRP	XMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.82%	1.08%	+0.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.73%	2.61%	+1.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.48%	3.07%	+1.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.44%	5.54%	+3.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.44%	5.54%	+3.90%

APRP vs. XMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

APRP has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than XMAR's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

APRP vs. XMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither APRP nor XMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both APRP and XMAR in my portfolio?

APRP and XMAR have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, APRP or XMAR?

APRP has higher volatility (1.82%) compared to XMAR (1.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, APRP dropped -13.66% vs XMAR's -7.29%.

Which ETF is better, APRP or XMAR?

On 1-year performance, APRP leads with 16.56% vs 12.10% for XMAR. On fees, APRP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, XMAR has been the lower-risk option at 1.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, APRP or XMAR?

Over the 1-year period, APRP has performed better with a 16.56% return vs 12.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, APRP or XMAR?

APRP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for XMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, APRP or XMAR?

APRP and XMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between APRP and XMAR?

They also come from different issuers: PGIM and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for APRP and 0.85% for XMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.98 vs 3.73), 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.