CUSD vs. PULS

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF (CUSD) and PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS).

CUSD and PULS are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CUSD is an actively managed fund by CrossingBridge. It was launched on Sep 20, 2021. PULS is an actively managed fund by PGIM. It was launched on Apr 5, 2018.

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.

CUSD vs. PULS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CUSD CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF	2.92%	5.02%	4.57%	6.05%	2.03%	2.40%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	0.93%	4.97%	6.12%	6.26%	1.52%	0.01%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CUSD achieves a 2.92% return, which is significantly higher than PULS's 0.93% return.

CUSD

• 1D: 1.58%
• 1M: 1.88%
• YTD: 2.92%
• 6M: 3.01%
• 1Y: 6.54%
• 3Y*: 5.62%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PULS

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.18%
• YTD: 0.93%
• 6M: 2.03%
• 1Y: 4.74%
• 3Y*: 5.68%
• 5Y*: 3.98%
• 10Y*: —

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

CUSD vs. PULS - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

CUSD

CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF

PULS

PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF

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: 35
CUSD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
CUSD Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
CUSD Omega Ratio Rank: 36
CUSD Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
CUSD Martin Ratio Rank: 38

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.

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	0.51	9.23	-8.72
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.86	18.34	-17.48
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	5.29	-4.13
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.22	13.86	-12.65
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.53	95.78	-92.25
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 0.51, which is lower than the PULS Sharpe Ratio of 9.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CUSD and PULS, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CUSD	PULS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.51	9.23	-8.72
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	5.73	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.79	2.46	-1.67

Correlation

The correlation between CUSD and PULS is -0.04. This indicates that the assets' prices tend to move in opposite directions. Negative correlation can be particularly beneficial for diversification and risk management, as one asset may offset the losses of the other during market fluctuations.

Dividends

CUSD vs. PULS - Dividend Comparison

CUSD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.65%, more than PULS's 4.68% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CUSD CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF	13.65%	14.05%	7.10%	3.62%	1.14%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	4.68%	4.78%	5.62%	5.48%	2.30%	1.19%	1.85%	2.69%	1.87%

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%	-0.34%	-5.08%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.79%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.31%	0.00%	-1.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.40%	-0.09%	-0.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.87%	0.05%	+1.82%

Volatility

CUSD vs. PULS - Volatility Comparison

CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF (CUSD) has a higher volatility of 3.92% compared to PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) at 0.15%. 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	3.92%	0.15%	+3.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.34%	0.28%	+9.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.81%	0.52%	+12.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.50%	0.70%	+5.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.50%	1.34%	+5.16%