CLOX vs. PULS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CLOX (Panagram AAA CLO ETF) and PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CLOX is a CLO fund actively managed by Panagram, while PULS is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CLOX returned 4.96% vs 4.70% for PULS. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CLOX charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PULS.

Performance

CLOX vs. PULS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Panagram AAA CLO ETF (CLOX) 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, CLOX achieves a 1.97% return, which is significantly higher than PULS's 1.73% return.

CLOX

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 0.47%
• YTD: 1.97%
• 6M: 2.36%
• 1Y: 4.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PULS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 1.73%
• 6M: 2.09%
• 1Y: 4.70%
• 3Y*: 5.61%
• 5Y*: 4.12%
• 10Y*: —

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

CLOX vs. PULS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CLOX Panagram AAA CLO ETF	1.97%	5.52%	7.16%	3.93%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	1.73%	4.97%	6.12%	3.03%

Correlation

The correlation between CLOX and PULS is 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 20, 2023	0.10

Return for Risk

CLOX vs. PULS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLOX

CLOX Risk / Return Rank: 96
CLOX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CLOX Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
CLOX Omega Ratio Rank: 97
CLOX Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
CLOX Martin Ratio Rank: 96

PULS

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

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.

CLOX vs. PULS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Panagram AAA CLO ETF (CLOX) 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.

	CLOX	PULS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.81	11.41	-7.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	6.32	32.91	-26.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.90	7.59	-5.69
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.56	52.47	-44.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	38.45	318.56	-280.10
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CLOX vs. PULS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLOX Sharpe Ratio is 3.81, which is lower than the PULS Sharpe Ratio of 11.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLOX 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

	CLOX	PULS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.81	11.41	-7.60
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	5.92	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.96	2.51	-0.54

Drawdowns

CLOX vs. PULS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLOX drawdown since its inception was -4.13%, smaller than the maximum PULS drawdown of -5.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLOX and PULS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLOX	PULS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.13%	-5.85%	+1.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.66%	-0.09%	-0.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.34%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.79%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.02%	0.00%	-0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.08%	-0.09%	+0.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.13%	0.01%	+0.12%

Volatility

CLOX vs. PULS - Volatility Comparison

Panagram AAA CLO ETF (CLOX) has a higher volatility of 0.35% compared to PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) at 0.11%. This indicates that CLOX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PULS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLOX	PULS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.35%	0.11%	+0.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.90%	0.30%	+0.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.31%	0.41%	+0.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.33%	0.70%	+2.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.33%	1.33%	+2.00%

CLOX vs. PULS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLOX has a 0.20% 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

CLOX vs. PULS - Dividend Comparison

CLOX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.98%, more than PULS's 4.58% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CLOX Panagram AAA CLO ETF	4.98%	5.18%	6.25%	2.90%	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 CLOX and PULS in my portfolio?

CLOX and PULS have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CLOX or PULS?

CLOX has higher volatility (0.35%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLOX dropped -4.13% vs PULS's -5.85%.

Which ETF is better, CLOX or PULS?

On 1-year performance, CLOX leads with 4.96% vs 4.70% for PULS. On fees, PULS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, PULS has been the lower-risk option at 0.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CLOX or PULS?

Over the 1-year period, CLOX has performed better with a 4.96% return vs 4.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLOX or PULS?

PULS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for CLOX.

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

CLOX has the higher dividend yield at 4.98%, compared with 4.58% for PULS.

What is the main difference between CLOX and PULS?

CLOX is categorized as CLO, while PULS is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Panagram and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CLOX and 0.15% for PULS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.41 vs 3.81), 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.