PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FEBP vs. ISWN
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

Performance

FEBP vs. ISWN - 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 Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF (ISWN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

FEBP vs. ISWN - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024
FEBP
PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February
-1.82%12.06%12.73%
ISWN
Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF
0.94%23.23%-3.93%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEBP achieves a -1.82% return, which is significantly lower than ISWN's 0.94% return.


FEBP

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

ISWN

1D
2.06%
1M
-6.89%
YTD
0.94%
6M
3.42%
1Y
15.90%
3Y*
6.58%
5Y*
-0.01%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


FEBP vs. ISWN - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEBP has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than ISWN's 0.49% expense ratio.


Return for Risk

FEBP vs. ISWN — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEBP
FEBP Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
FEBP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FEBP Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
FEBP Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
FEBP Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
FEBP Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
Martin Ratio Rank

ISWN
ISWN Risk / Return Rank: 6868
Overall Rank
ISWN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ISWN Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
ISWN Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
ISWN Calmar Ratio Rank: 6363
Calmar Ratio Rank
ISWN Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank
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. ISWN - 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 Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF (ISWN). 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.


FEBPISWNDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.19

1.35

-0.17

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.79

1.86

-0.07

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.24

+0.05

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

1.71

1.61

+0.10

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

9.14

6.68

+2.46

FEBP vs. ISWN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBP Sharpe Ratio is 1.19, which is comparable to the ISWN Sharpe Ratio of 1.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBP and ISWN, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.


Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FEBPISWNDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.19

1.35

-0.17

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.00

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.15

-0.04

+1.20

Correlation

The correlation between FEBP and ISWN is 0.56, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.


Dividends

FEBP vs. ISWN - Dividend Comparison

FEBP has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ISWN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.91%.


TTM20252024202320222021
FEBP
PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
ISWN
Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF
2.91%2.89%3.27%2.91%2.00%0.76%

Drawdowns

FEBP vs. ISWN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBP drawdown since its inception was -12.11%, smaller than the maximum ISWN drawdown of -32.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBP and ISWN.


Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators


FEBPISWNDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-12.11%

-32.35%

+20.24%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.19%

-9.63%

+1.44%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-32.35%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.71%

-7.11%

+3.40%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.95%

-16.57%

+15.62%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.54%

2.32%

-0.78%

Volatility

FEBP vs. ISWN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP) is 3.47%, while Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF (ISWN) has a volatility of 6.13%. This indicates that FEBP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ISWN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period


FEBPISWNDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.47%

6.13%

-2.66%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.55%

8.60%

-3.05%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.60%

11.81%

-0.21%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

9.16%

11.47%

-2.31%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.16%

11.40%

-2.24%