FEBW vs. PBAP

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FEBW (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Feb ETF) and PBAP (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FEBW returned 13.16% vs 13.25% for PBAP. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FEBW charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PBAP.

Performance

FEBW vs. PBAP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Feb ETF (FEBW) and PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April (PBAP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEBW achieves a 4.48% return, which is significantly lower than PBAP's 6.89% return.

FEBW

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 0.34%
• YTD: 4.48%
• 6M: 4.67%
• 1Y: 13.16%
• 3Y*: 10.76%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PBAP

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 0.44%
• YTD: 6.89%
• 6M: 7.09%
• 1Y: 13.25%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FEBW vs. PBAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FEBW Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Feb ETF	4.48%	9.63%	6.98%
PBAP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April	6.89%	6.34%	8.86%

Correlation

The correlation between FEBW and PBAP is 0.83, 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	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2024	0.84

The correlation between FEBW and PBAP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FEBW vs. PBAP — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEBW

FEBW Risk / Return Rank: 84
FEBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
FEBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
FEBW Omega Ratio Rank: 91
FEBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
FEBW Martin Ratio Rank: 85

PBAP

PBAP Risk / Return Rank: 98
PBAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
PBAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
PBAP Omega Ratio Rank: 98
PBAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
PBAP 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.

FEBW vs. PBAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Feb ETF (FEBW) and PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April (PBAP). 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.

	FEBW	PBAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.73	4.14	-1.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.97	6.94	-2.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	2.10	-0.53
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.31	11.36	-8.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.02	71.14	-54.11

FEBW vs. PBAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBW Sharpe Ratio is 2.73, which is lower than the PBAP Sharpe Ratio of 4.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBW and PBAP, 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

FEBW vs. PBAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBW drawdown since its inception was -8.82%, smaller than the maximum PBAP drawdown of -9.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBW and PBAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBW	PBAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.82%	-9.70%	+0.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.00%	-1.17%	-2.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.82%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.27%	-0.05%	-0.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.67%	-0.78%	+0.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.77%	0.19%	+0.58%

Volatility

FEBW vs. PBAP - Volatility Comparison

Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Feb ETF (FEBW) has a higher volatility of 1.41% compared to PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April (PBAP) at 1.18%. This indicates that FEBW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PBAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FEBW	PBAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.41%	1.18%	+0.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.99%	2.29%	+1.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.85%	3.22%	+1.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.30%	7.06%	-0.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.30%	7.06%	-0.76%

FEBW vs. PBAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEBW has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than PBAP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

FEBW vs. PBAP - Dividend Comparison

Neither FEBW nor PBAP has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FEBW Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Feb ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.14%
PBAP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEBW and PBAP in my portfolio?

FEBW and PBAP have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FEBW or PBAP?

FEBW has higher volatility (1.41%) compared to PBAP (1.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FEBW dropped -8.82% vs PBAP's -9.70%.

Which ETF is better, FEBW or PBAP?

On 1-year performance, PBAP leads with 13.25% vs 13.16% for FEBW. On fees, PBAP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PBAP has been the lower-risk option at 1.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FEBW or PBAP?

Over the 1-year period, PBAP has performed better with a 13.25% return vs 13.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEBW or PBAP?

PBAP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for FEBW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FEBW or PBAP?

FEBW and PBAP have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between FEBW and PBAP?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PBAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.14 vs 2.73), 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.