JULP vs. PMAP

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

JULP (PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July) and PMAP (PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds from PGIM. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, JULP returned 17.84% vs 7.34% for PMAP. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.50% expense ratio.

Performance

JULP vs. PMAP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July (JULP) 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, JULP achieves a 5.35% return, which is significantly higher than PMAP's 3.28% return.

JULP

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 1.43%
• YTD: 5.35%
• 6M: 6.25%
• 1Y: 17.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

JULP vs. PMAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
JULP PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July	5.35%	16.38%
PMAP PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April	3.28%	5.37%

Correlation

The correlation between JULP and PMAP is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 2, 2025	0.85

The correlation between JULP and PMAP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

JULP vs. PMAP — Risk / Return Rank

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

JULP

JULP Risk / Return Rank: 85
JULP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
JULP Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
JULP Omega Ratio Rank: 87
JULP Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
JULP Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

JULP vs. PMAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July (JULP) 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.

	JULP	PMAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.69	6.43	-3.73
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.97	13.39	-9.43
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.56	2.92	-1.36
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.08	21.40	-17.32
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	22.32	133.92	-111.60
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

JULP vs. PMAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JULP Sharpe Ratio is 2.69, which is lower than the PMAP Sharpe Ratio of 6.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JULP 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

	JULP	PMAP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.69	6.43	-3.73
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.39	3.23	-1.85

Drawdowns

JULP vs. PMAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JULP drawdown since its inception was -12.36%, which is greater than PMAP's maximum drawdown of -1.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JULP and PMAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	JULP	PMAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.36%	-1.75%	-10.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.47%	-0.34%	-4.13%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.06%	+0.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.09%	-0.08%	-1.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.82%	0.05%	+0.77%

Volatility

JULP vs. PMAP - Volatility Comparison

PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July (JULP) has a higher volatility of 1.06% compared to PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April (PMAP) at 0.27%. This indicates that JULP'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

	JULP	PMAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.06%	0.27%	+0.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.87%	0.81%	+4.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.66%	1.15%	+5.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.78%	2.33%	+7.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.78%	2.33%	+7.45%

JULP vs. PMAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both JULP and PMAP have an expense ratio of 0.50%.

Dividends

JULP vs. PMAP - Dividend Comparison

Neither JULP nor PMAP has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JULP and PMAP in my portfolio?

JULP and PMAP have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JULP or PMAP?

JULP has higher volatility (1.06%) compared to PMAP (0.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JULP dropped -12.36% vs PMAP's -1.75%.

Which ETF is better, JULP or PMAP?

On 1-year performance, JULP leads with 17.84% vs 7.34% for PMAP. Both ETFs have the same 0.50% expense ratio. 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, JULP or PMAP?

Over the 1-year period, JULP has performed better with a 17.84% return vs 7.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JULP or PMAP?

JULP and PMAP have the same expense ratio: 0.50% per year.

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

JULP and PMAP have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PMAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.43 vs 2.69), 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.