FEBP vs. APRW

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP) and AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW).

FEBP and APRW are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. FEBP is an actively managed fund by PGIM. It was launched on Jan 31, 2024. APRW is an actively managed fund by Allianz. It was launched on May 28, 2020.

Performance

FEBP vs. APRW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP) and AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

FEBP vs. APRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FEBP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February	-1.82%	12.06%	12.73%
APRW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF	1.48%	6.18%	9.98%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEBP achieves a -1.82% return, which is significantly lower than APRW's 1.48% return.

FEBP

• 1D: 1.86%
• 1M: -3.04%
• YTD: -1.82%
• 6M: 1.02%
• 1Y: 13.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

APRW

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 0.58%
• YTD: 1.48%
• 6M: 3.35%
• 1Y: 10.24%
• 3Y*: 9.39%
• 5Y*: 6.54%
• 10Y*: —

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

FEBP vs. APRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEBP has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than APRW's 0.74% expense ratio.

APRW

AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF

FEBP

PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February

Return for Risk

FEBP vs. APRW — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEBP

FEBP Risk / Return Rank: 71
FEBP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
FEBP Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
FEBP Omega Ratio Rank: 75
FEBP Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
FEBP Martin Ratio Rank: 80

APRW

APRW Risk / Return Rank: 84
APRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
APRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
APRW Omega Ratio Rank: 96
APRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
APRW Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

FEBP vs. APRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP) and AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW). 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.

	FEBP	APRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.19	1.49	-0.30
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.79	2.20	-0.42
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.51	-0.22
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.71	1.93	-0.22
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.14	13.27	-4.13
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FEBP vs. APRW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBP Sharpe Ratio is 1.19, which is comparable to the APRW Sharpe Ratio of 1.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBP and APRW, 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

	FEBP	APRW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.19	1.49	-0.30
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.98	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.15	1.04	+0.11

Correlation

The correlation between FEBP and APRW is 0.84, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

FEBP vs. APRW - Dividend Comparison

Neither FEBP nor APRW has paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FEBP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
APRW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	3.67%

Drawdowns

FEBP vs. APRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBP drawdown since its inception was -12.11%, which is greater than APRW's maximum drawdown of -9.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBP and APRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBP	APRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.11%	-9.61%	-2.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.19%	-5.62%	-2.57%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-9.61%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.71%	0.00%	-3.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.95%	-1.15%	+0.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.54%	0.82%	+0.72%

Volatility

FEBP vs. APRW - Volatility Comparison

PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP) has a higher volatility of 3.47% compared to AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW) at 0.71%. This indicates that FEBP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than APRW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FEBP	APRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.47%	0.71%	+2.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.55%	1.60%	+3.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.60%	6.93%	+4.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.16%	6.73%	+2.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.16%	6.47%	+2.69%