CMBS vs. PULS
CMBS (iShares CMBS ETF) and PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CMBS is a Mortgage Backed Securities fund tracking the Barclays Capital U.S. CMBS (ERISA Only) Index, while PULS is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM. CMBS is passively managed, while PULS is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMBS returned 0.70%/yr vs 4.14%/yr for PULS. At a 0.19 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMBS charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PULS.
Performance
CMBS vs. PULS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CMBS achieves a 0.25% return, which is significantly lower than PULS's 1.88% return.
CMBS
- 1D
- -0.23%
- 1M
- 0.07%
- YTD
- 0.25%
- 6M
- 0.56%
- 1Y
- 4.12%
- 3Y*
- 5.34%
- 5Y*
- 0.70%
- 10Y*
- 2.00%
PULS
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.38%
- YTD
- 1.88%
- 6M
- 2.10%
- 1Y
- 4.67%
- 3Y*
- 5.59%
- 5Y*
- 4.14%
- 10Y*
- —
CMBS vs. PULS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMBS iShares CMBS ETF | 0.25% | 7.67% | 4.27% | 5.06% | -11.21% | -1.82% | 7.86% | 7.94% | 1.94% |
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF | 1.88% | 4.97% | 6.12% | 6.26% | 1.52% | 0.48% | 1.47% | 2.97% | 1.71% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMBS and PULS is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.19 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.25 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.28 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 10, 2018 | 0.19 |
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
CMBS vs. PULS — Risk / Return Rank
CMBS
PULS
CMBS vs. PULS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares CMBS ETF (CMBS) 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.
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.
| CMBS | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -10.29 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -31.18 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.20 | 7.59 | -6.39 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.67 | 52.47 | -50.80 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.46 | 317.38 | -312.92 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CMBS vs. PULS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMBS drawdown since its inception was -15.87%, which is greater than PULS's maximum drawdown of -5.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMBS and PULS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMBS | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -15.87% | -5.85% | -10.02% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.44% | -0.09% | -2.35% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.29% | -0.34% | -2.95% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -15.87% | -0.79% | -15.08% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -15.87% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.67% | 0.00% | -1.67% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.95% | -0.09% | -2.86% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.91% | 0.01% | +0.90% |
Volatility
CMBS vs. PULS - Volatility Comparison
iShares CMBS ETF (CMBS) has a higher volatility of 1.10% compared to PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) at 0.11%. This indicates that CMBS'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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMBS | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.10% | 0.11% | +0.99% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.81% | 0.30% | +2.51% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.64% | 0.41% | +3.23% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.31% | 0.70% | +4.61% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.77% | 1.33% | +4.44% |
CMBS vs. PULS - Expense Ratio Comparison
CMBS has a 0.25% 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
CMBS vs. PULS - Dividend Comparison
CMBS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.58%, less than PULS's 4.57% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMBS iShares CMBS ETF | 3.58% | 3.45% | 3.31% | 2.97% | 2.65% | 2.46% | 2.83% | 2.74% | 2.70% | 2.50% | 2.29% | 2.31% |
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF | 4.57% | 4.78% | 5.62% | 5.48% | 2.30% | 1.19% | 1.85% | 2.69% | 1.87% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CMBS and PULS have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CMBS has higher volatility (1.10%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CMBS dropped -15.87% vs PULS's -5.85%.
On 5-year performance, PULS leads with 4.14% vs 0.70% for CMBS. 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.
Over the 5-year period, PULS has performed better with a 4.14% return vs 0.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PULS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for CMBS.
PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.57%, compared with 3.58% for CMBS.
CMBS is categorized as Mortgage Backed Securities, while PULS is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: iShares and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for CMBS and 0.15% for PULS.
PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.41 vs 1.12), 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 CMBS and PULS
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