NOVP vs. MMAX
NOVP (PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - November) and MMAX (iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, NOVP returned 16.66% vs 7.29% for MMAX. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.50% expense ratio.
Performance
NOVP vs. MMAX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, NOVP achieves a 6.63% return, which is significantly higher than MMAX's 3.01% return.
NOVP
- 1D
- -0.21%
- 1M
- 0.96%
- YTD
- 6.63%
- 6M
- 6.56%
- 1Y
- 16.66%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MMAX
- 1D
- -0.04%
- 1M
- 0.09%
- YTD
- 3.01%
- 6M
- 3.19%
- 1Y
- 7.29%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
NOVP vs. MMAX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
NOVP PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - November | 6.63% | 14.29% |
MMAX iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF | 3.01% | 6.04% |
Correlation
The correlation between NOVP and MMAX is 0.68, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.68 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2025 | 0.69 |
The correlation between NOVP and MMAX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
NOVP vs. MMAX — Risk / Return Rank
NOVP
MMAX
NOVP vs. MMAX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - November (NOVP) and iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF (MMAX). 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| NOVP | MMAX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.89 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -6.08 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.46 | 2.35 | -0.89 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.92 | 15.86 | -12.94 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 14.20 | 84.16 | -69.96 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
NOVP vs. MMAX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NOVP drawdown since its inception was -11.79%, which is greater than MMAX's maximum drawdown of -1.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NOVP and MMAX.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| NOVP | MMAX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -11.79% | -1.93% | -9.86% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.74% | -0.46% | -5.28% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.54% | -0.20% | -0.34% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.02% | -0.11% | -0.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.18% | 0.09% | +1.09% |
Volatility
NOVP vs. MMAX - Volatility Comparison
PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - November (NOVP) has a higher volatility of 2.56% compared to iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF (MMAX) at 0.52%. This indicates that NOVP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MMAX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| NOVP | MMAX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.56% | 0.52% | +2.04% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 6.36% | 1.06% | +5.30% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 7.41% | 1.42% | +5.99% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.64% | 2.48% | +7.16% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.64% | 2.48% | +7.16% |
NOVP vs. MMAX - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both NOVP and MMAX have an expense ratio of 0.50%.
Dividends
NOVP vs. MMAX - Dividend Comparison
NOVP has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MMAX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
MMAX iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF | 1.28% | 1.31% |
NOVP PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - November | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
NOVP and MMAX have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
NOVP has higher volatility (2.56%) compared to MMAX (0.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NOVP dropped -11.79% vs MMAX's -1.93%.
On 1-year performance, NOVP leads with 16.66% vs 7.29% for MMAX. Both ETFs have the same 0.50% expense ratio. On volatility, MMAX has been the lower-risk option at 0.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, NOVP has performed better with a 16.66% return vs 7.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
NOVP and MMAX have the same expense ratio: 0.50% per year.
MMAX has the higher dividend yield at 1.28%, compared with 0.00% for NOVP.
They also come from different issuers: PGIM and iShares.
MMAX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.15 vs 2.26), 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 NOVP and MMAX
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