BOXX vs. PULS

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

BOXX (Alpha Architect 1-3 Month Box ETF) and PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) are both Ultrashort Bond funds. BOXX is passively managed, while PULS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BOXX returned 4.72%/yr vs 5.58%/yr for PULS. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BOXX charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PULS.

Performance

BOXX vs. PULS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Alpha Architect 1-3 Month Box ETF (BOXX) and PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BOXX achieves a 1.60% return, which is significantly lower than PULS's 1.73% return.

BOXX

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 0.25%
• YTD: 1.60%
• 6M: 1.94%
• 1Y: 4.04%
• 3Y*: 4.72%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PULS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.26%
• YTD: 1.73%
• 6M: 2.05%
• 1Y: 4.65%
• 3Y*: 5.58%
• 5Y*: 4.12%
• 10Y*: —

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

BOXX vs. PULS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BOXX Alpha Architect 1-3 Month Box ETF	1.60%	4.37%	5.16%	5.04%	0.07%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	1.73%	4.97%	6.12%	6.26%	0.06%

Correlation

The correlation between BOXX and PULS is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.22
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 29, 2022	0.10

The correlation between BOXX and PULS shifts across timeframes, from 0.10 (all time) to 0.22 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BOXX vs. PULS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BOXX	PULS
Technology	33.1%	-
Financial Services	12.3%	1.5%
Communication Services	10.7%	-
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	-
Healthcare	9.8%	-
Industrials	8.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.4%	-
Energy	3.5%	-
Utilities	2.5%	-
Real Estate	2.0%	-
Basic Materials	1.9%	-

Return for Risk

BOXX vs. PULS — Risk / Return Rank

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

BOXX

BOXX Risk / Return Rank: 100
BOXX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
BOXX Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
BOXX Omega Ratio Rank: 100
BOXX Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
BOXX Martin Ratio Rank: 100

PULS

PULS Risk / Return Rank: 100
PULS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
PULS Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
PULS Omega Ratio Rank: 100
PULS Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
PULS Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

BOXX vs. PULS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Alpha Architect 1-3 Month Box ETF (BOXX) and PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS). 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.

	BOXX	PULS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	12.68	11.31	+1.37
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	37.40	32.62	+4.78
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	9.69	7.53	+2.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	58.95	52.00	+6.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	524.63	314.53	+210.10
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BOXX vs. PULS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BOXX Sharpe Ratio is 12.68, which is comparable to the PULS Sharpe Ratio of 11.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BOXX and PULS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BOXX	PULS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.68	11.31	+1.37
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	5.92	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	12.89	2.51	+10.38

Drawdowns

BOXX vs. PULS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BOXX drawdown since its inception was -0.12%, smaller than the maximum PULS drawdown of -5.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BOXX and PULS.

Drawdown Indicators

	BOXX	PULS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.12%	-5.85%	+5.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.07%	-0.09%	+0.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.12%	-0.34%	+0.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.79%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.01%	-0.02%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.00%	-0.09%	+0.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.01%	0.01%	0.00%

Volatility

BOXX vs. PULS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Alpha Architect 1-3 Month Box ETF (BOXX) is 0.09%, while PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) has a volatility of 0.11%. This indicates that BOXX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PULS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BOXX	PULS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.09%	0.11%	-0.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.25%	0.30%	-0.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.32%	0.41%	-0.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.37%	0.70%	-0.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.37%	1.33%	-0.96%

BOXX vs. PULS - Expense Ratio Comparison

BOXX has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than PULS's 0.15% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

BOXX vs. PULS - Dividend Comparison

BOXX has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PULS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.58%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BOXX Alpha Architect 1-3 Month Box ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.26%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	4.58%	4.78%	5.62%	5.48%	2.30%	1.19%	1.85%	2.69%	1.87%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BOXX and PULS in my portfolio?

BOXX and PULS have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BOXX or PULS?

PULS has higher volatility (0.11%) compared to BOXX (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BOXX dropped -0.12% vs PULS's -5.85%.

Which ETF is better, BOXX or PULS?

On 3-year performance, PULS leads with 5.58% vs 4.72% for BOXX. On fees, PULS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BOXX or PULS?

Over the 3-year period, PULS has performed better with a 5.58% return vs 4.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BOXX or PULS?

PULS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for BOXX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BOXX or PULS?

PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.58%, compared with 0.00% for BOXX.

What is the main difference between BOXX and PULS?

They also come from different issuers: Alpha Architect and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for BOXX and 0.15% for PULS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BOXX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (12.68 vs 11.31), 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.