CUSD vs. PULS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CUSD (CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF) and PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) are both Ultrashort Bond funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CUSD returned 4.69%/yr vs 5.61%/yr for PULS. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. CUSD charges 0.81%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PULS.

Performance

CUSD vs. PULS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF (CUSD) 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, CUSD achieves a 1.42% return, which is significantly lower than PULS's 1.73% return.

CUSD

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: -0.39%
• YTD: 1.42%
• 6M: 0.90%
• 1Y: 3.46%
• 3Y*: 4.69%
• 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)

CUSD vs. PULS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CUSD CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF	1.42%	5.02%	4.57%	6.05%	2.03%	2.40%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	1.73%	4.97%	6.12%	6.26%	1.52%	0.01%

Correlation

The correlation between CUSD and PULS is -0.13, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.13
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2021	-0.04

Return for Risk

CUSD vs. PULS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CUSD

CUSD Risk / Return Rank: 15
CUSD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
CUSD Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
CUSD Omega Ratio Rank: 14
CUSD Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
CUSD Martin Ratio Rank: 17

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.

CUSD vs. PULS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF (CUSD) 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.

	CUSD	PULS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.25	11.41	-11.15
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.49	32.91	-32.43
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	7.59	-6.51
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.64	52.47	-51.83
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	1.69	318.56	-316.87
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CUSD vs. PULS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CUSD Sharpe Ratio is 0.25, which is lower than the PULS Sharpe Ratio of 11.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CUSD 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

	CUSD	PULS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.25	11.41	-11.15
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	5.92	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.65	2.51	-1.85

Drawdowns

CUSD vs. PULS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CUSD drawdown since its inception was -5.42%, smaller than the maximum PULS drawdown of -5.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CUSD and PULS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CUSD	PULS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.42%	-5.85%	+0.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.42%	-0.09%	-5.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.42%	-0.34%	-5.08%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.79%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.75%	0.00%	-2.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.46%	-0.09%	-0.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.06%	0.01%	+2.05%

Volatility

CUSD vs. PULS - Volatility Comparison

CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF (CUSD) has a higher volatility of 4.38% compared to PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) at 0.11%. This indicates that CUSD'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

	CUSD	PULS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.38%	0.11%	+4.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.95%	0.30%	+10.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.67%	0.41%	+13.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.03%	0.70%	+6.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.03%	1.33%	+5.70%

CUSD vs. PULS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CUSD has a 0.81% expense ratio, which is higher than PULS's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

CUSD vs. PULS - Dividend Comparison

CUSD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.85%, more than PULS's 4.58% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CUSD CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF	13.85%	14.05%	7.10%	3.62%	1.14%	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 CUSD and PULS in my portfolio?

CUSD and PULS have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CUSD or PULS?

CUSD has higher volatility (4.38%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CUSD dropped -5.42% vs PULS's -5.85%.

Which ETF is better, CUSD or PULS?

On 3-year performance, PULS leads with 5.61% vs 4.69% for CUSD. 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, CUSD or PULS?

Over the 3-year period, PULS has performed better with a 5.61% return vs 4.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CUSD or PULS?

PULS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.81% for CUSD.

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

CUSD has the higher dividend yield at 13.85%, compared with 4.58% for PULS.

What is the main difference between CUSD and PULS?

They also come from different issuers: CrossingBridge and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.81% for CUSD and 0.15% for PULS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.41 vs 0.25), 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.