DUSB vs. PULS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

DUSB (Dimensional Ultrashort Fixed Income ETF) and PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) are both Ultrashort Bond funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, DUSB returned 3.80% vs 4.59% for PULS. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.15% expense ratio.

Performance

DUSB vs. PULS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Dimensional Ultrashort Fixed Income ETF (DUSB) 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, DUSB achieves a 1.42% return, which is significantly lower than PULS's 1.96% return.

DUSB

• 1D: -0.35%
• 1M: -0.18%
• YTD: 1.42%
• 6M: 1.48%
• 1Y: 3.80%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PULS

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.32%
• YTD: 1.96%
• 6M: 2.10%
• 1Y: 4.59%
• 3Y*: 5.53%
• 5Y*: 4.18%
• 10Y*: —

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

DUSB vs. PULS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
DUSB Dimensional Ultrashort Fixed Income ETF	1.42%	4.53%	5.60%	1.79%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	1.96%	4.97%	6.12%	1.84%

Correlation

The correlation between DUSB and PULS is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	0.14

Return for Risk

DUSB vs. PULS — Risk / Return Rank

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

DUSB

DUSB Risk / Return Rank: 98
DUSB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
DUSB Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
DUSB Omega Ratio Rank: 99
DUSB Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
DUSB Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

DUSB vs. PULS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Dimensional Ultrashort Fixed Income ETF (DUSB) 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.

	DUSB	PULS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	6.56	10.75	-4.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	9.27	27.89	-18.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	3.49	6.78	-3.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.24	51.29	-42.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	123.58	293.54	-169.96

DUSB vs. PULS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DUSB Sharpe Ratio is 6.56, which is lower than the PULS Sharpe Ratio of 10.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DUSB 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

DUSB vs. PULS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DUSB drawdown since its inception was -0.41%, smaller than the maximum PULS drawdown of -5.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DUSB and PULS.

Drawdown Indicators

	DUSB	PULS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.41%	-5.85%	+5.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.41%	-0.09%	-0.32%
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	-0.41%	0.00%	-0.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.01%	-0.09%	+0.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.03%	0.02%	+0.01%

Volatility

DUSB vs. PULS - Volatility Comparison

Dimensional Ultrashort Fixed Income ETF (DUSB) has a higher volatility of 0.41% compared to PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) at 0.16%. This indicates that DUSB'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

	DUSB	PULS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.41%	0.16%	+0.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.50%	0.32%	+0.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.58%	0.43%	+0.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.57%	0.70%	-0.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.57%	1.33%	-0.76%

DUSB vs. PULS - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both DUSB and PULS have an expense ratio of 0.15%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

DUSB vs. PULS - Dividend Comparison

DUSB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.07%, less than PULS's 4.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
DUSB Dimensional Ultrashort Fixed Income ETF	4.07%	4.32%	4.92%	1.23%	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 DUSB and PULS in my portfolio?

DUSB and PULS have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DUSB or PULS?

DUSB has higher volatility (0.41%) compared to PULS (0.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DUSB dropped -0.41% vs PULS's -5.85%.

Which ETF is better, DUSB or PULS?

On 1-year performance, PULS leads with 4.59% vs 3.80% for DUSB. Both ETFs have the same 0.15% expense ratio. On volatility, PULS has been the lower-risk option at 0.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DUSB or PULS?

Over the 1-year period, PULS has performed better with a 4.59% return vs 3.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DUSB or PULS?

DUSB and PULS have the same expense ratio: 0.15% per year.

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

PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.57%, compared with 4.07% for DUSB.

What is the main difference between DUSB and PULS?

They also come from different issuers: Dimensional and PGIM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (10.75 vs 6.56), 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.