ISWN vs. FEBP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ISWN (Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF) and FEBP (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February) are both Options Trading funds. ISWN is passively managed, while FEBP is actively managed. Over the past year, ISWN returned 13.27% vs 18.57% for FEBP. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ISWN charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for FEBP.

Performance

ISWN vs. FEBP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF (ISWN) and PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ISWN achieves a 4.28% return, which is significantly lower than FEBP's 6.79% return.

ISWN

• 1D: -0.80%
• 1M: 2.01%
• YTD: 4.28%
• 6M: 4.94%
• 1Y: 13.27%
• 3Y*: 8.12%
• 5Y*: -0.37%
• 10Y*: —

FEBP

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

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

ISWN vs. FEBP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ISWN Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF	4.28%	23.23%	-3.93%
FEBP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February	6.79%	12.06%	12.73%

Correlation

The correlation between ISWN and FEBP is 0.65, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2024	0.58

The correlation between ISWN and FEBP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

ISWN vs. FEBP — Risk / Return Rank

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

ISWN

ISWN Risk / Return Rank: 30
ISWN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
ISWN Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
ISWN Omega Ratio Rank: 30
ISWN Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
ISWN Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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

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.

ISWN vs. FEBP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF (ISWN) and PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP). 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.

	ISWN	FEBP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.09	2.68	-1.59
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.60	3.85	-2.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.53	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.38	3.41	-2.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.67	17.60	-12.93
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ISWN vs. FEBP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ISWN Sharpe Ratio is 1.09, which is lower than the FEBP Sharpe Ratio of 2.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ISWN and FEBP, 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

	ISWN	FEBP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.09	2.68	-1.59
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.03	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.01	1.53	-1.52

Drawdowns

ISWN vs. FEBP - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

	ISWN	FEBP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.35%	-12.11%	-20.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.63%	-5.47%	-4.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.77%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.35%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.03%	-0.26%	-3.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.17%	-0.91%	-15.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.85%	1.06%	+1.79%

Volatility

ISWN vs. FEBP - Volatility Comparison

Amplify BlackSwan ISWN ETF (ISWN) has a higher volatility of 4.67% compared to PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP) at 1.42%. This indicates that ISWN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FEBP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ISWN	FEBP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.67%	1.42%	+3.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.10%	5.44%	+4.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.20%	6.96%	+5.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.67%	8.98%	+2.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.57%	8.98%	+2.59%

ISWN vs. FEBP - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

ISWN vs. FEBP - Dividend Comparison

ISWN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.82%, while FEBP has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
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	2.82%	2.89%	3.27%	2.91%	2.00%	0.76%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ISWN and FEBP in my portfolio?

ISWN and FEBP have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ISWN or FEBP?

ISWN has higher volatility (4.67%) compared to FEBP (1.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISWN dropped -32.35% vs FEBP's -12.11%.

Which ETF is better, ISWN or FEBP?

On 1-year performance, FEBP leads with 18.57% vs 13.27% for ISWN. On fees, ISWN is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, FEBP has been the lower-risk option at 1.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ISWN or FEBP?

Over the 1-year period, FEBP has performed better with a 18.57% return vs 13.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ISWN or FEBP?

ISWN is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FEBP.

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

ISWN has the higher dividend yield at 2.82%, compared with 0.00% for FEBP.

What is the main difference between ISWN and FEBP?

They also come from different issuers: Amplify and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for ISWN and 0.50% for FEBP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FEBP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.68 vs 1.09), 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.