ILCG vs. PULS
ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) and PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ILCG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Morningstar US Large-Mid Cap Broad Growth Index Gross, while PULS is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM. ILCG is passively managed, while PULS is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, ILCG returned 13.61%/yr vs 4.14%/yr for PULS. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ILCG charges 0.04%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PULS.
Performance
ILCG vs. PULS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ILCG achieves a 9.97% return, which is significantly higher than PULS's 1.88% return.
ILCG
- 1D
- 0.32%
- 1M
- -0.83%
- YTD
- 9.97%
- 6M
- 11.01%
- 1Y
- 24.20%
- 3Y*
- 24.07%
- 5Y*
- 13.61%
- 10Y*
- 17.85%
PULS
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.38%
- YTD
- 1.88%
- 6M
- 2.10%
- 1Y
- 4.67%
- 3Y*
- 5.59%
- 5Y*
- 4.14%
- 10Y*
- —
ILCG vs. PULS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF | 9.97% | 16.71% | 32.82% | 40.41% | -31.75% | 24.33% | 38.56% | 33.22% | -1.02% |
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF | 1.88% | 4.97% | 6.12% | 6.26% | 1.52% | 0.48% | 1.47% | 2.97% | 1.71% |
Correlation
The correlation between ILCG and PULS is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.18 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.09 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 10, 2018 | 0.08 |
The correlation between ILCG and PULS shifts across timeframes, from 0.08 (all time) to 0.18 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
ILCG vs. PULS — Risk / Return Rank
ILCG
PULS
ILCG vs. PULS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) and PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS). 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.
| ILCG | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -10.08 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -31.10 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 7.59 | -6.35 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.46 | 52.47 | -51.01 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.04 | 317.38 | -312.34 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ILCG vs. PULS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ILCG drawdown since its inception was -52.98%, which is greater than PULS's maximum drawdown of -5.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ILCG and PULS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ILCG | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -52.98% | -5.85% | -47.13% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.65% | -0.09% | -15.56% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.10% | -0.34% | -22.76% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -35.38% | -0.79% | -34.59% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -35.38% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.92% | 0.00% | -4.92% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.21% | -0.09% | -8.12% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.51% | 0.01% | +4.50% |
Volatility
ILCG vs. PULS - Volatility Comparison
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) has a higher volatility of 6.77% compared to PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) at 0.11%. This indicates that ILCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PULS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ILCG | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.77% | 0.11% | +6.66% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.98% | 0.30% | +13.68% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.16% | 0.41% | +16.75% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.12% | 0.70% | +21.42% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.59% | 1.33% | +20.26% |
ILCG vs. PULS - Expense Ratio Comparison
ILCG has a 0.04% expense ratio, which is lower than PULS's 0.15% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
ILCG vs. PULS - Dividend Comparison
ILCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, less than PULS's 4.57% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF | 0.42% | 0.47% | 0.50% | 0.69% | 0.75% | 0.34% | 0.28% | 0.54% | 0.81% | 0.89% | 0.95% | 0.99% |
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF | 4.57% | 4.78% | 5.62% | 5.48% | 2.30% | 1.19% | 1.85% | 2.69% | 1.87% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ILCG and PULS have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ILCG has higher volatility (6.77%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ILCG dropped -52.98% vs PULS's -5.85%.
On 5-year performance, ILCG leads with 13.61% vs 4.14% for PULS. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, PULS has been the lower-risk option at 0.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 13.61% return vs 4.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for PULS.
PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.57%, compared with 0.42% for ILCG.
ILCG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while PULS is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: iShares and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.04% for ILCG and 0.15% for PULS.
PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.41 vs 1.33), 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.
Find the right allocation for ILCG and PULS
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer