FEBZ vs. PMAP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FEBZ (TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF) and PMAP (PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds. FEBZ is passively managed, while PMAP is actively managed. Over the past year, FEBZ returned 20.13% vs 7.34% for PMAP. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FEBZ charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PMAP.

Performance

FEBZ vs. PMAP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) and PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April (PMAP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEBZ achieves a 7.99% return, which is significantly higher than PMAP's 3.28% return.

FEBZ

• 1D: -0.49%
• 1M: 4.07%
• YTD: 7.99%
• 6M: 7.75%
• 1Y: 20.13%
• 3Y*: 15.79%
• 5Y*: 11.22%
• 10Y*: —

PMAP

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.59%
• YTD: 3.28%
• 6M: 3.83%
• 1Y: 7.34%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FEBZ vs. PMAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FEBZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF	7.99%	16.29%
PMAP PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April	3.28%	5.37%

Correlation

The correlation between FEBZ and PMAP is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 2, 2025	0.85

The correlation between FEBZ and PMAP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FEBZ vs. PMAP — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEBZ

FEBZ Risk / Return Rank: 65
FEBZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
FEBZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
FEBZ Omega Ratio Rank: 66
FEBZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
FEBZ Martin Ratio Rank: 67

PMAP

PMAP Risk / Return Rank: 99
PMAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
PMAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
PMAP Omega Ratio Rank: 99
PMAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
PMAP Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

FEBZ vs. PMAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) and PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April (PMAP). 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.

	FEBZ	PMAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.17	6.43	-4.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.01	13.39	-10.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	2.92	-1.53
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.83	21.40	-18.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.21	133.92	-121.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FEBZ vs. PMAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.17, which is lower than the PMAP Sharpe Ratio of 6.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBZ and PMAP, 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

	FEBZ	PMAP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.17	6.43	-4.26
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.00	3.23	-2.23

Drawdowns

FEBZ vs. PMAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBZ drawdown since its inception was -17.50%, which is greater than PMAP's maximum drawdown of -1.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBZ and PMAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBZ	PMAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.50%	-1.75%	-15.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.14%	-0.34%	-6.80%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.68%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.50%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.49%	-0.06%	-0.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.32%	-0.08%	-3.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.65%	0.05%	+1.60%

Volatility

FEBZ vs. PMAP - Volatility Comparison

TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) has a higher volatility of 2.29% compared to PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April (PMAP) at 0.27%. This indicates that FEBZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PMAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FEBZ	PMAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.29%	0.27%	+2.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.09%	0.81%	+6.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.34%	1.15%	+8.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.47%	2.33%	+10.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.35%	2.33%	+10.02%

FEBZ vs. PMAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEBZ has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than PMAP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

FEBZ vs. PMAP - Dividend Comparison

FEBZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.96%, while PMAP has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
FEBZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF	2.96%	3.20%	3.88%	6.81%
PMAP PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEBZ and PMAP in my portfolio?

FEBZ and PMAP have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FEBZ or PMAP?

FEBZ has higher volatility (2.29%) compared to PMAP (0.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FEBZ dropped -17.50% vs PMAP's -1.75%.

Which ETF is better, FEBZ or PMAP?

On 1-year performance, FEBZ leads with 20.13% vs 7.34% for PMAP. On fees, PMAP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PMAP has been the lower-risk option at 0.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FEBZ or PMAP?

Over the 1-year period, FEBZ has performed better with a 20.13% return vs 7.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEBZ or PMAP?

PMAP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for FEBZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FEBZ or PMAP?

FEBZ has the higher dividend yield at 2.96%, compared with 0.00% for PMAP.

What is the main difference between FEBZ and PMAP?

They also come from different issuers: TrueShares and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for FEBZ and 0.50% for PMAP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PMAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.43 vs 2.17), 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.