MART vs. FEBP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MART (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF) and FEBP (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MART returned 19.86% vs 18.57% for FEBP. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MART charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for FEBP.

Performance

MART vs. FEBP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF (MART) 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, MART achieves a 8.18% return, which is significantly higher than FEBP's 6.79% return.

MART

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 2.60%
• YTD: 8.18%
• 6M: 9.29%
• 1Y: 19.86%
• 3Y*: 16.35%
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

MART vs. FEBP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MART Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF	8.18%	14.93%	13.79%
FEBP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February	6.79%	12.06%	12.73%

Correlation

The correlation between MART and FEBP is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2024	0.94

The correlation between MART and FEBP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MART vs. FEBP — Risk / Return Rank

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

MART

MART Risk / Return Rank: 86
MART Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
MART Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
MART Omega Ratio Rank: 90
MART Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
MART Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

MART vs. FEBP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF (MART) 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.

	MART	FEBP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.82	2.68	+0.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.16	3.85	+0.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.53	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.76	3.41	+0.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.14	17.60	+3.53
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MART vs. FEBP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MART Sharpe Ratio is 2.82, which is comparable to the FEBP Sharpe Ratio of 2.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MART 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

	MART	FEBP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.82	2.68	+0.14
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.79	1.53	+0.26

Drawdowns

MART vs. FEBP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MART drawdown since its inception was -11.61%, roughly equal to the maximum FEBP drawdown of -12.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MART and FEBP.

Drawdown Indicators

	MART	FEBP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.61%	-12.11%	+0.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.30%	-5.47%	+0.17%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.61%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.33%	-0.26%	-0.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.90%	-0.91%	+0.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.94%	1.06%	-0.12%

Volatility

MART vs. FEBP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF (MART) is 1.31%, while PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP) has a volatility of 1.42%. This indicates that MART experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FEBP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MART	FEBP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.31%	1.42%	-0.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.60%	5.44%	+0.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.07%	6.96%	+0.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.69%	8.98%	+0.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.69%	8.98%	+0.71%

MART vs. FEBP - Expense Ratio Comparison

MART has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than FEBP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

MART vs. FEBP - Dividend Comparison

Neither MART nor FEBP has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MART and FEBP in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, MART and FEBP move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, MART or FEBP?

FEBP has higher volatility (1.42%) compared to MART (1.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MART dropped -11.61% vs FEBP's -12.11%.

Which ETF is better, MART or FEBP?

On 1-year performance, MART leads with 19.86% vs 18.57% for FEBP. On fees, FEBP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, MART has been the lower-risk option at 1.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MART or FEBP?

Over the 1-year period, MART has performed better with a 19.86% return vs 18.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MART or FEBP?

FEBP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for MART.

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

MART and FEBP have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between MART and FEBP?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MART currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.82 vs 2.68), 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.