FBCG vs. PULS

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) and PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FBCG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while PULS is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FBCG returned 14.46%/yr vs 4.14%/yr for PULS. At a 0.09 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FBCG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PULS.

Performance

FBCG vs. PULS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) 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, FBCG achieves a 11.31% return, which is significantly higher than PULS's 1.88% return.

FBCG

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: 0.07%
• YTD: 11.31%
• 6M: 12.74%
• 1Y: 34.39%
• 3Y*: 28.04%
• 5Y*: 14.46%
• 10Y*: —

PULS

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: 1.88%
• 6M: 2.10%
• 1Y: 4.67%
• 3Y*: 5.59%
• 5Y*: 4.14%
• 10Y*: —

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

FBCG vs. PULS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	11.31%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	21.34%	41.44%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	1.88%	4.97%	6.12%	6.26%	1.52%	0.48%	1.37%

Correlation

The correlation between FBCG and PULS is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.19
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.10
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2020	0.09

The correlation between FBCG and PULS shifts across timeframes, from 0.09 (5 years) to 0.19 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

FBCG vs. PULS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 53
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 53
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 53

PULS

PULS Risk / Return Rank: 99
PULS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
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.

FBCG vs. PULS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) 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.

	FBCG	PULS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	11.41	-9.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.24	32.91	-30.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	7.59	-6.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.12	52.47	-50.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.07	317.38	-309.31

FBCG vs. PULS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is lower than the PULS Sharpe Ratio of 11.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBCG 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

FBCG vs. PULS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBCG drawdown since its inception was -43.56%, which is greater than PULS's maximum drawdown of -5.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBCG and PULS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBCG	PULS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.56%	-5.85%	-37.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.17%	-0.09%	-15.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.89%	-0.34%	-27.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.56%	-0.79%	-42.77%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.71%	0.00%	-4.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.45%	-0.09%	-11.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.99%	0.01%	+3.98%

Volatility

FBCG vs. PULS - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a higher volatility of 7.21% compared to PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) at 0.11%. This indicates that FBCG'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

	FBCG	PULS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.21%	0.11%	+7.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.09%	0.30%	+14.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.38%	0.41%	+18.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.90%	0.70%	+25.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.77%	1.33%	+24.44%

FBCG vs. PULS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBCG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than PULS's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

FBCG vs. PULS - Dividend Comparison

FBCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, less than PULS's 4.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	0.04%	0.05%	0.12%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	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 FBCG and PULS in my portfolio?

FBCG and PULS have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FBCG or PULS?

FBCG has higher volatility (7.21%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBCG dropped -43.56% vs PULS's -5.85%.

Which ETF is better, FBCG or PULS?

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 14.46% vs 4.14% for PULS. 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, FBCG or PULS?

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 14.46% return vs 4.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBCG or PULS?

PULS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

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

PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.57%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FBCG and PULS?

FBCG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while PULS is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FBCG and 0.15% for PULS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.41 vs 1.66), 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.