MRCP vs. PULS
MRCP (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - March) and PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MRCP is a Options Trading fund actively managed by PGIM, while PULS is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MRCP returned 18.03% vs 4.70% for PULS. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MRCP charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PULS.
Performance
MRCP vs. PULS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MRCP achieves a 7.27% return, which is significantly higher than PULS's 1.73% return.
MRCP
- 1D
- -0.22%
- 1M
- 2.27%
- YTD
- 7.27%
- 6M
- 8.29%
- 1Y
- 18.03%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PULS
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.36%
- YTD
- 1.73%
- 6M
- 2.09%
- 1Y
- 4.70%
- 3Y*
- 5.61%
- 5Y*
- 4.12%
- 10Y*
- —
MRCP vs. PULS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
MRCP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - March | 7.27% | 14.13% | 11.42% |
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF | 1.73% | 4.97% | 4.94% |
Correlation
The correlation between MRCP 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 4, 2024 | 0.14 |
The correlation between MRCP and PULS shifts across timeframes, from 0.14 (all time) to 0.24 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
MRCP vs. PULS — Risk / Return Rank
MRCP
PULS
MRCP vs. PULS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - March (MRCP) 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.
| MRCP | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.91 | 11.41 | -8.50 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 4.29 | 32.91 | -28.62 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.61 | 7.59 | -5.98 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.76 | 52.47 | -48.71 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 21.57 | 318.56 | -296.98 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| MRCP | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.91 | 11.41 | -8.50 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 5.92 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.60 | 2.51 | -0.91 |
Drawdowns
MRCP vs. PULS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MRCP drawdown since its inception was -10.73%, which is greater than PULS's maximum drawdown of -5.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MRCP and PULS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MRCP | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -10.73% | -5.85% | -4.88% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.81% | -0.09% | -4.72% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -0.34% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -0.79% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.22% | 0.00% | -0.22% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.77% | -0.09% | -0.68% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.84% | 0.01% | +0.83% |
Volatility
MRCP vs. PULS - Volatility Comparison
PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - March (MRCP) has a higher volatility of 1.36% compared to PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) at 0.11%. This indicates that MRCP'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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MRCP | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.36% | 0.11% | +1.25% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.95% | 0.30% | +4.65% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.24% | 0.41% | +5.83% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.27% | 0.70% | +8.57% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.27% | 1.33% | +7.94% |
MRCP vs. PULS - Expense Ratio Comparison
MRCP has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than PULS's 0.15% expense ratio.
Dividends
MRCP vs. PULS - Dividend Comparison
MRCP has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PULS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.58%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MRCP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - March | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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
MRCP 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.
MRCP has higher volatility (1.36%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MRCP dropped -10.73% vs PULS's -5.85%.
On 1-year performance, MRCP leads with 18.03% vs 4.70% 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.
Over the 1-year period, MRCP has performed better with a 18.03% return vs 4.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PULS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for MRCP.
PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.58%, compared with 0.00% for MRCP.
MRCP is categorized as Options Trading, while PULS is Ultrashort Bond. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for MRCP and 0.15% for PULS.
PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.41 vs 2.91), 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.
Find the right allocation for MRCP and PULS
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer