FEBP vs. MART

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FEBP (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February) and MART (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FEBP returned 18.57% vs 19.86% for MART. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FEBP charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for MART.

Performance

FEBP vs. MART - 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 Buffer10 Mar ETF (MART). 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 lower than MART's 8.18% return.

FEBP

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

MART

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 2.60%
• YTD: 8.18%
• 6M: 9.29%
• 1Y: 19.86%
• 3Y*: 16.35%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FEBP vs. MART - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FEBP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February	6.79%	12.06%	12.73%
MART Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF	8.18%	14.93%	13.79%

Correlation

The correlation between FEBP and MART is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2024	0.94

The correlation between FEBP and MART has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FEBP vs. MART — 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

MART

MART Risk / Return Rank: 86
MART Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
MART Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
MART Omega Ratio Rank: 90
MART Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
MART Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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. MART - 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 Buffer10 Mar ETF (MART). 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	MART	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.68	2.82	-0.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.85	4.16	-0.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	1.59	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.41	3.76	-0.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.60	21.14	-3.53
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. MART - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBP Sharpe Ratio is 2.68, which is comparable to the MART Sharpe Ratio of 2.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBP and MART, 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	MART	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.68	2.82	-0.14
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.53	1.79	-0.26

Drawdowns

FEBP vs. MART - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBP drawdown since its inception was -12.11%, roughly equal to the maximum MART drawdown of -11.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBP and MART.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBP	MART	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.11%	-11.61%	-0.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.47%	-5.30%	-0.17%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.61%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.26%	-0.33%	+0.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.91%	-0.90%	-0.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.06%	0.94%	+0.12%

Volatility

FEBP vs. MART - 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 Buffer10 Mar ETF (MART) at 1.31%. This indicates that FEBP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MART based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FEBP	MART	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.42%	1.31%	+0.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.44%	5.60%	-0.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.96%	7.07%	-0.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.98%	9.69%	-0.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.98%	9.69%	-0.71%

FEBP vs. MART - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FEBP vs. MART - Dividend Comparison

Neither FEBP nor MART has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEBP and MART in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, FEBP and MART move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, FEBP or MART?

FEBP has higher volatility (1.42%) compared to MART (1.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FEBP dropped -12.11% vs MART's -11.61%.

Which ETF is better, FEBP or MART?

On 1-year performance, MART leads with 19.86% vs 18.57% for FEBP. On fees, FEBP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, MART has been the lower-risk option at 1.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FEBP or MART?

Over the 1-year period, MART has performed better with a 19.86% return vs 18.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEBP or MART?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between FEBP and MART?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MART currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.82 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.