MOOD vs. PULS

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

MOOD (Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF) and PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MOOD is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Relative Sentiment, while PULS is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, MOOD returned 19.89%/yr vs 5.58%/yr for PULS. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MOOD charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PULS.

Performance

MOOD vs. PULS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF (MOOD) and PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MOOD achieves a 12.64% return, which is significantly higher than PULS's 1.73% return.

MOOD

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: -0.30%
• YTD: 12.64%
• 6M: 14.97%
• 1Y: 33.33%
• 3Y*: 19.89%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PULS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.26%
• YTD: 1.73%
• 6M: 2.05%
• 1Y: 4.65%
• 3Y*: 5.58%
• 5Y*: 4.12%
• 10Y*: —

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

MOOD vs. PULS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
MOOD Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF	12.64%	30.39%	12.53%	12.56%	-2.90%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	1.73%	4.97%	6.12%	6.26%	1.98%

Correlation

The correlation between MOOD and PULS is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 20, 2022	0.18

MOOD vs. PULS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MOOD	PULS
Technology	27.6%	-
Financial Services	15.7%	1.5%
Industrials	12.6%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	-
Healthcare	8.4%	-
Communication Services	7.9%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.1%	-
Basic Materials	4.4%	-
Energy	3.7%	-
Utilities	2.7%	-
Real Estate	2.5%	-

Return for Risk

MOOD vs. PULS — Risk / Return Rank

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

MOOD

MOOD Risk / Return Rank: 74
MOOD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
MOOD Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
MOOD Omega Ratio Rank: 84
MOOD Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
MOOD Martin Ratio Rank: 65

PULS

PULS Risk / Return Rank: 100
PULS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
PULS Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
PULS Omega Ratio Rank: 100
PULS Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
PULS 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.

MOOD vs. PULS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF (MOOD) 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.

	MOOD	PULS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.34	11.31	-8.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.76	32.62	-29.86
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	7.53	-6.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.45	52.00	-48.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.67	314.53	-303.86
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MOOD vs. PULS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MOOD Sharpe Ratio is 2.34, which is lower than the PULS Sharpe Ratio of 11.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MOOD and PULS, 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

	MOOD	PULS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.34	11.31	-8.97
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	5.92	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.31	2.51	-1.20

Drawdowns

MOOD vs. PULS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MOOD drawdown since its inception was -14.34%, which is greater than PULS's maximum drawdown of -5.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MOOD and PULS.

Drawdown Indicators

	MOOD	PULS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.34%	-5.85%	-8.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.71%	-0.09%	-9.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.71%	-0.34%	-9.37%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.79%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.14%	-0.02%	-2.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.32%	-0.09%	-2.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.13%	0.01%	+3.12%

Volatility

MOOD vs. PULS - Volatility Comparison

Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF (MOOD) has a higher volatility of 3.59% compared to PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) at 0.11%. This indicates that MOOD'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.

Volatility by Period

	MOOD	PULS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.59%	0.11%	+3.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.55%	0.30%	+12.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.33%	0.41%	+13.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.10%	0.70%	+11.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.10%	1.33%	+10.77%

MOOD vs. PULS - Expense Ratio Comparison

MOOD has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than PULS's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

MOOD vs. PULS - Dividend Comparison

MOOD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.36%, less than PULS's 4.58% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
MOOD Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF	0.36%	0.40%	1.33%	1.34%	1.43%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	4.58%	4.78%	5.62%	5.48%	2.30%	1.19%	1.85%	2.69%	1.87%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MOOD and PULS in my portfolio?

MOOD and PULS have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MOOD or PULS?

MOOD has higher volatility (3.59%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MOOD dropped -14.34% vs PULS's -5.85%.

Which ETF is better, MOOD or PULS?

On 3-year performance, MOOD leads with 19.89% vs 5.58% for PULS. On fees, PULS is cheaper at 0.15% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, MOOD or PULS?

Over the 3-year period, MOOD has performed better with a 19.89% return vs 5.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MOOD or PULS?

PULS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for MOOD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MOOD or PULS?

PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.58%, compared with 0.36% for MOOD.

What is the main difference between MOOD and PULS?

MOOD is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while PULS is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Relative Sentiment and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for MOOD and 0.15% for PULS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.31 vs 2.34), 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.