FEBP vs. APRW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FEBP (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February) and APRW (AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FEBP returned 18.57% vs 12.59% for APRW. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FEBP charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for APRW.

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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEBP achieves a 6.79% return, which is significantly higher than APRW's 6.27% return.

FEBP

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 2.45%
• YTD: 6.79%
• 6M: 7.87%
• 1Y: 18.57%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

APRW

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 1.28%
• YTD: 6.27%
• 6M: 7.02%
• 1Y: 12.59%
• 3Y*: 10.31%
• 5Y*: 7.12%
• 10Y*: —

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

FEBP vs. APRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FEBP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February	6.79%	12.06%	12.73%
APRW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF	6.27%	6.18%	9.98%

Correlation

The correlation between FEBP and APRW is 0.87, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2024	0.84

The correlation between FEBP and APRW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

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: 82
FEBP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
FEBP Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FEBP Omega Ratio Rank: 87
FEBP Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
FEBP Martin Ratio Rank: 85

APRW

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

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	2.68	4.83	-2.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.85	8.87	-5.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	2.23	-0.69
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.41	16.82	-13.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.60	86.04	-68.44
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 2.68, which is lower than the APRW Sharpe Ratio of 4.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBP and APRW, 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

	FEBP	APRW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.68	4.83	-2.15
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.06	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.53	1.15	+0.38

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	-5.47%	-0.75%	-4.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.61%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-9.61%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.26%	-0.09%	-0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.91%	-1.12%	+0.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.06%	0.15%	+0.91%

Volatility

FEBP vs. APRW - Volatility Comparison

PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP) has a higher volatility of 1.42% compared to AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW) at 0.60%. 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	1.42%	0.60%	+0.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.44%	1.84%	+3.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.96%	2.62%	+4.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.98%	6.72%	+2.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.98%	6.41%	+2.57%

FEBP vs. APRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FEBP vs. APRW - Dividend Comparison

Neither FEBP nor APRW has paid dividends to shareholders.

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEBP and APRW in my portfolio?

FEBP and APRW have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FEBP or APRW?

FEBP has higher volatility (1.42%) compared to APRW (0.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FEBP dropped -12.11% vs APRW's -9.61%.

Which ETF is better, FEBP or APRW?

On 1-year performance, FEBP leads with 18.57% vs 12.59% for APRW. On fees, FEBP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, APRW has been the lower-risk option at 0.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FEBP or APRW?

Over the 1-year period, FEBP has performed better with a 18.57% return vs 12.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEBP or APRW?

FEBP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for APRW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FEBP or APRW?

FEBP and APRW have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between FEBP and APRW?

They also come from different issuers: PGIM and Allianz. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FEBP and 0.74% for APRW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

APRW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.83 vs 2.68), 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.