MARW vs. PBFB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MARW (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Mar ETF) and PBFB (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MARW returned 12.91% vs 13.63% for PBFB. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MARW charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PBFB.

Performance

MARW vs. PBFB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Mar ETF (MARW) and PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February (PBFB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MARW achieves a 5.01% return, which is significantly higher than PBFB's 4.68% return.

MARW

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 1.59%
• YTD: 5.01%
• 6M: 5.94%
• 1Y: 12.91%
• 3Y*: 11.31%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PBFB

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 1.70%
• YTD: 4.68%
• 6M: 5.66%
• 1Y: 13.63%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MARW vs. PBFB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MARW Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Mar ETF	5.01%	10.61%	10.22%
PBFB PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February	4.68%	9.86%	10.00%

Correlation

The correlation between MARW and PBFB is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2024	0.87

The correlation between MARW and PBFB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MARW vs. PBFB — Risk / Return Rank

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

MARW

MARW Risk / Return Rank: 89
MARW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
MARW Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
MARW Omega Ratio Rank: 95
MARW Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
MARW Martin Ratio Rank: 92

PBFB

PBFB Risk / Return Rank: 86
PBFB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
PBFB Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
PBFB Omega Ratio Rank: 92
PBFB Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
PBFB Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

MARW vs. PBFB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Mar ETF (MARW) and PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February (PBFB). 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.

	MARW	PBFB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.07	2.87	+0.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.50	4.27	+0.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.71	1.61	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.83	3.61	+0.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	22.52	19.17	+3.35
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MARW vs. PBFB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MARW Sharpe Ratio is 3.07, which is comparable to the PBFB Sharpe Ratio of 2.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MARW and PBFB, 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

	MARW	PBFB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.07	2.87	+0.19
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.97	1.67	+0.30

Drawdowns

MARW vs. PBFB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MARW drawdown since its inception was -7.58%, smaller than the maximum PBFB drawdown of -8.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MARW and PBFB.

Drawdown Indicators

	MARW	PBFB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-7.58%	-8.65%	+1.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.39%	-3.79%	+0.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.58%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.12%	-0.15%	+0.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.48%	-0.60%	+0.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.57%	0.71%	-0.14%

Volatility

MARW vs. PBFB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Mar ETF (MARW) is 0.71%, while PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February (PBFB) has a volatility of 0.75%. This indicates that MARW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PBFB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MARW	PBFB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.71%	0.75%	-0.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.37%	3.71%	-0.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.23%	4.77%	-0.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.10%	6.39%	-0.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.10%	6.39%	-0.29%

MARW vs. PBFB - Expense Ratio Comparison

MARW has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than PBFB's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

MARW vs. PBFB - Dividend Comparison

Neither MARW nor PBFB has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MARW and PBFB in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, MARW and PBFB 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, MARW or PBFB?

PBFB has higher volatility (0.75%) compared to MARW (0.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MARW dropped -7.58% vs PBFB's -8.65%.

Which ETF is better, MARW or PBFB?

On 1-year performance, PBFB leads with 13.63% vs 12.91% for MARW. On fees, PBFB is cheaper at 0.50% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MARW or PBFB?

Over the 1-year period, PBFB has performed better with a 13.63% return vs 12.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MARW or PBFB?

PBFB is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for MARW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MARW or PBFB?

MARW and PBFB have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between MARW and PBFB?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MARW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.07 vs 2.87), 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.