CSHP vs. PULS

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) and PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) are both Ultrashort Bond funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CSHP returned 3.96% vs 4.59% for PULS. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CSHP charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PULS.

Performance

CSHP vs. PULS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) and PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with CSHP having a 1.86% return and PULS slightly higher at 1.90%.

CSHP

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 0.30%
• YTD: 1.86%
• 6M: 1.93%
• 1Y: 3.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PULS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.26%
• YTD: 1.90%
• 6M: 2.03%
• 1Y: 4.59%
• 3Y*: 5.51%
• 5Y*: 4.16%
• 10Y*: —

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

CSHP vs. PULS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	1.86%	4.10%	2.24%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	1.90%	4.97%	2.64%

Correlation

The correlation between CSHP and PULS is 0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 18, 2024	0.07

Return for Risk

CSHP vs. PULS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CSHP

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

PULS

PULS Risk / Return Rank: 99
PULS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
PULS Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
PULS Omega Ratio Rank: 99
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.

CSHP vs. PULS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) 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.

	CSHP	PULS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	11.22	10.75	+0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	28.31	27.89	+0.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	6.67	6.78	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	65.84	51.29	+14.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	395.75	293.54	+102.22

CSHP vs. PULS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CSHP Sharpe Ratio is 11.22, which is comparable to the PULS Sharpe Ratio of 10.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CSHP 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.

Drawdowns

CSHP vs. PULS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CSHP drawdown since its inception was -0.08%, smaller than the maximum PULS drawdown of -5.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CSHP and PULS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CSHP	PULS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.08%	-5.85%	+5.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.06%	-0.09%	+0.03%
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	-0.01%	0.00%	-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%	0.02%	-0.01%

Volatility

CSHP vs. PULS - Volatility Comparison

iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) and PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) have volatilities of 0.15% and 0.15%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CSHP	PULS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.15%	0.15%	0.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.27%	0.32%	-0.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.36%	0.43%	-0.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.41%	0.70%	-0.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.41%	1.33%	-0.92%

CSHP vs. PULS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CSHP 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

CSHP vs. PULS - Dividend Comparison

CSHP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.91%, less than PULS's 4.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	3.91%	5.39%	1.96%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	4.57%	4.78%	5.62%	5.48%	2.30%	1.19%	1.85%	2.69%	1.87%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CSHP and PULS in my portfolio?

CSHP and PULS have a correlation of 0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CSHP or PULS?

PULS has higher volatility (0.15%) compared to CSHP (0.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CSHP dropped -0.08% vs PULS's -5.85%.

Which ETF is better, CSHP or PULS?

On 1-year performance, PULS leads with 4.59% vs 3.96% for CSHP. 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, CSHP or PULS?

Over the 1-year period, PULS has performed better with a 4.59% return vs 3.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CSHP or PULS?

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

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

PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.57%, compared with 3.91% for CSHP.

What is the main difference between CSHP and PULS?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CSHP and 0.15% for PULS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.22 vs 10.75), 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.