DFNM vs. PUSH

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

DFNM (Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF) and PUSH (PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, DFNM returned 5.31% vs 3.81% for PUSH. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. DFNM charges 0.17%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PUSH.

Performance

DFNM vs. PUSH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF (DFNM) and PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF (PUSH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

As of year-to-date, both investments have demonstrated similar returns, with DFNM at 1.27% and PUSH at 1.27%.

DFNM

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: 1.27%
• 6M: 1.66%
• 1Y: 5.31%
• 3Y*: 3.39%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PUSH

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 1.27%
• 6M: 1.61%
• 1Y: 3.81%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

DFNM vs. PUSH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
DFNM Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF	1.27%	3.87%	1.61%
PUSH PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF	1.27%	4.16%	1.74%

Correlation

The correlation between DFNM and PUSH is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.23
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2024	0.37

The correlation between DFNM and PUSH shifts across timeframes, from 0.23 (1 year) to 0.37 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

DFNM vs. PUSH — Risk / Return Rank

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

DFNM

DFNM Risk / Return Rank: 77
DFNM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
DFNM Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
DFNM Omega Ratio Rank: 94
DFNM Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
DFNM Martin Ratio Rank: 56

PUSH

PUSH Risk / Return Rank: 87
PUSH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
PUSH Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
PUSH Omega Ratio Rank: 94
PUSH Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
PUSH Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

DFNM vs. PUSH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF (DFNM) and PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF (PUSH). 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.

	DFNM	PUSH	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.04	2.51	+0.54
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.41	3.80	+0.61
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.69	1.70	-0.01
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.77	7.65	-4.89
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.07	19.05	-8.98
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DFNM vs. PUSH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DFNM Sharpe Ratio is 3.04, which is comparable to the PUSH Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DFNM and PUSH, 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

	DFNM	PUSH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.04	2.51	+0.54
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.57	2.90	-2.33

Drawdowns

DFNM vs. PUSH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DFNM drawdown since its inception was -6.99%, which is greater than PUSH's maximum drawdown of -0.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DFNM and PUSH.

Drawdown Indicators

	DFNM	PUSH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-6.99%	-0.85%	-6.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.84%	-0.50%	-1.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-2.82%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.38%	0.00%	-0.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.96%	-0.11%	-1.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.50%	0.20%	+0.30%

Volatility

DFNM vs. PUSH - Volatility Comparison

Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF (DFNM) has a higher volatility of 0.59% compared to PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF (PUSH) at 0.31%. This indicates that DFNM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PUSH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DFNM	PUSH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.59%	0.31%	+0.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.29%	0.98%	+0.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.77%	1.52%	+0.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.54%	1.30%	+1.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.54%	1.30%	+1.24%

DFNM vs. PUSH - Expense Ratio Comparison

DFNM has a 0.17% expense ratio, which is higher than PUSH'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

DFNM vs. PUSH - Dividend Comparison

DFNM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.89%, less than PUSH's 3.24% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DFNM Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF	2.89%	2.94%	2.74%	2.39%	1.16%	0.05%
PUSH PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF	3.24%	3.45%	1.86%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DFNM and PUSH in my portfolio?

DFNM and PUSH have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DFNM or PUSH?

DFNM has higher volatility (0.59%) compared to PUSH (0.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DFNM dropped -6.99% vs PUSH's -0.85%.

Which ETF is better, DFNM or PUSH?

On 1-year performance, DFNM leads with 5.31% vs 3.81% for PUSH. On fees, PUSH is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, PUSH has been the lower-risk option at 0.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DFNM or PUSH?

Over the 1-year period, DFNM has performed better with a 5.31% return vs 3.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DFNM or PUSH?

PUSH is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.17% for DFNM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, DFNM or PUSH?

PUSH has the higher dividend yield at 3.24%, compared with 2.89% for DFNM.

What is the main difference between DFNM and PUSH?

They also come from different issuers: Dimensional and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.17% for DFNM and 0.15% for PUSH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DFNM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.04 vs 2.51), 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.