NCBGX vs. PUDZX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NCBGX (New Covenant Balanced Growth Fund) and PUDZX (PGIM Real Assets Fund) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Over the past 10 years, NCBGX returned 8.95%/yr vs 6.87%/yr for PUDZX. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NCBGX charges 0.13%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for PUDZX.

Performance

NCBGX vs. PUDZX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in New Covenant Balanced Growth Fund (NCBGX) and PGIM Real Assets Fund (PUDZX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NCBGX achieves a 6.87% return, which is significantly lower than PUDZX's 13.05% return. Over the past 10 years, NCBGX has outperformed PUDZX with an annualized return of 8.95%, while PUDZX has yielded a comparatively lower 6.87% annualized return.

NCBGX

• 1D: 0.17%
• 1M: 3.62%
• YTD: 6.87%
• 6M: 6.86%
• 1Y: 18.32%
• 3Y*: 14.10%
• 5Y*: 7.48%
• 10Y*: 8.95%

PUDZX

• 1D: 0.56%
• 1M: -1.56%
• YTD: 13.05%
• 6M: 12.98%
• 1Y: 21.61%
• 3Y*: 13.43%
• 5Y*: 8.14%
• 10Y*: 6.87%

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

NCBGX vs. PUDZX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
NCBGX New Covenant Balanced Growth Fund	6.87%	12.56%	13.80%	16.76%	-15.81%	13.68%	15.42%	20.38%	-3.42%	13.47%
PUDZX PGIM Real Assets Fund	13.05%	13.40%	8.61%	3.26%	-2.76%	18.49%	4.84%	16.29%	-9.20%	6.22%

Correlation

The correlation between NCBGX and PUDZX is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.53
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.60
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 4, 2011	0.64

Over the past year, the correlation between NCBGX and PUDZX has dropped to 0.34 - well below their long-term average of 0.64, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

NCBGX vs. PUDZX — Risk / Return Rank

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

NCBGX

NCBGX Risk / Return Rank: 70
NCBGX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
NCBGX Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
NCBGX Omega Ratio Rank: 64
NCBGX Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
NCBGX Martin Ratio Rank: 79

PUDZX

PUDZX Risk / Return Rank: 89
PUDZX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
PUDZX Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
PUDZX Omega Ratio Rank: 82
PUDZX Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
PUDZX Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

NCBGX vs. PUDZX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for New Covenant Balanced Growth Fund (NCBGX) and PGIM Real Assets Fund (PUDZX). 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.

	NCBGX	PUDZX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.42	2.90	-0.48
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.47	3.95	-0.48
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.54	-0.10
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.25	6.09	-2.84
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	14.78	22.64	-7.86
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NCBGX vs. PUDZX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NCBGX Sharpe Ratio is 2.42, which is comparable to the PUDZX Sharpe Ratio of 2.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NCBGX and PUDZX, 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

	NCBGX	PUDZX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.42	2.90	-0.48
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69	0.78	-0.08
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.80	0.71	+0.09
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.47	0.54	-0.07

Drawdowns

NCBGX vs. PUDZX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NCBGX drawdown since its inception was -41.27%, which is greater than PUDZX's maximum drawdown of -21.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NCBGX and PUDZX.

Drawdown Indicators

	NCBGX	PUDZX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.27%	-21.53%	-19.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.81%	-3.56%	-2.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.76%	-8.20%	-3.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.39%	-17.98%	-2.41%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-22.98%	-21.53%	-1.45%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-2.10%	+2.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.90%	-5.26%	-0.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.28%	0.96%	+0.32%

Volatility

NCBGX vs. PUDZX - Volatility Comparison

New Covenant Balanced Growth Fund (NCBGX) has a higher volatility of 2.25% compared to PGIM Real Assets Fund (PUDZX) at 2.04%. This indicates that NCBGX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PUDZX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NCBGX	PUDZX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.25%	2.04%	+0.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.01%	6.08%	-0.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.81%	7.52%	+0.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.85%	10.54%	+0.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.28%	9.70%	+1.58%

NCBGX vs. PUDZX - Expense Ratio Comparison

NCBGX has a 0.13% expense ratio, which is lower than PUDZX's 0.25% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

NCBGX vs. PUDZX - Dividend Comparison

NCBGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.41%, more than PUDZX's 7.73% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NCBGX New Covenant Balanced Growth Fund	8.41%	9.02%	7.48%	2.28%	4.15%	3.90%	6.65%	5.58%	6.72%	1.53%	0.99%	12.13%
PUDZX PGIM Real Assets Fund	7.73%	8.93%	6.67%	3.66%	9.10%	13.00%	4.94%	3.40%	2.14%	2.10%	1.39%	1.72%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NCBGX and PUDZX in my portfolio?

NCBGX and PUDZX have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NCBGX or PUDZX?

NCBGX has higher volatility (2.25%) compared to PUDZX (2.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NCBGX dropped -41.27% vs PUDZX's -21.53%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PUDZX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.90 vs 2.42), 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.