NVBW vs. APRP

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

NVBW (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Nov ETF) and APRP (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - April) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, NVBW returned 11.12% vs 16.46% for APRP. Their correlation of 0.86 means they have usually moved in the same direction. NVBW charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for APRP.

Performance

NVBW vs. APRP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Nov ETF (NVBW) and PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - April (APRP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NVBW achieves a 6.40% return, which is significantly lower than APRP's 10.78% return.

NVBW

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: 1.18%
• 6M: 5.23%
• YTD: 6.40%
• 1Y: 11.12%
• 3Y*: 8.74%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.08%

APRP

• 1D: 0.37%
• 1M: 1.17%
• 6M: 10.02%
• YTD: 10.78%
• 1Y: 16.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.40%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
APRP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - April	$92.96K	$114.08K	$127.84K
NVBW Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Nov ETF	$98.33K	$62.36K	$122.18K

NVBW vs. APRP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NVBW Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Nov ETF	6.40%	9.25%	5.86%
APRP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - April	10.78%	7.80%	10.06%

Correlation

The correlation between NVBW and APRP is 0.90, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2024	0.86

The correlation between NVBW and APRP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NVBW vs. APRP — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

NVBW

NVBW Risk / Return Rank: 83
NVBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
NVBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
NVBW Omega Ratio Rank: 89
NVBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
NVBW Martin Ratio Rank: 86

APRP

APRP Risk / Return Rank: 82
APRP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
APRP Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
APRP Omega Ratio Rank: 96
APRP Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
APRP Martin Ratio Rank: 97

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

NVBW vs. APRP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Nov ETF (NVBW) and PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - April (APRP). 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.

	NVBW	APRP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.12	1.77	+0.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.12	2.65	+0.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.67	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.77	2.72	+0.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.69	33.90	-20.21

NVBW vs. APRP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NVBW Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is comparable to the APRP Sharpe Ratio of 1.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NVBW and APRP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

NVBW vs. APRP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NVBW drawdown since its inception was -8.41%, smaller than the maximum APRP drawdown of -13.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NVBW and APRP.

Drawdown Indicators

	NVBW	APRP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.41%	-13.66%	+5.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.03%	-6.07%	+2.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.41%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.73%	-1.19%	+0.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.81%	0.49%	+0.32%

Volatility

NVBW vs. APRP - Volatility Comparison

Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Nov ETF (NVBW) has a higher volatility of 1.54% compared to PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - April (APRP) at 1.41%. This indicates that NVBW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than APRP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NVBW	APRP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.54%	1.41%	+0.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.46%	9.06%	-4.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.28%	9.38%	-4.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.88%	10.70%	-3.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.88%	10.70%	-3.82%

NVBW vs. APRP - Expense Ratio Comparison

NVBW has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than APRP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

NVBW vs. APRP - Dividend Comparison

Neither NVBW nor APRP has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NVBW and APRP in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, NVBW and APRP 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, NVBW or APRP?

NVBW has higher volatility (1.54%) compared to APRP (1.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NVBW dropped -8.41% vs APRP's -13.66%.

Which ETF is better, NVBW or APRP?

On 1-year performance, APRP leads with 16.46% vs 11.12% for NVBW. On fees, APRP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, APRP has been the lower-risk option at 1.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NVBW or APRP?

Over the 1-year period, APRP has performed better with a 16.46% return vs 11.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NVBW or APRP?

APRP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for NVBW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NVBW or APRP?

NVBW and APRP have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between NVBW and APRP?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NVBW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 1.77), 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.