NVBW vs. PBMR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

NVBW (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Nov ETF) and PBMR (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, NVBW returned 11.16% vs 12.02% for PBMR. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NVBW charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PBMR.

Performance

NVBW vs. PBMR - 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 20 ETF - March (PBMR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with NVBW having a 4.52% return and PBMR slightly higher at 4.60%.

NVBW

• 1D: -0.48%
• 1M: -0.07%
• YTD: 4.52%
• 6M: 4.23%
• 1Y: 11.16%
• 3Y*: 8.70%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PBMR

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: -0.10%
• YTD: 4.60%
• 6M: 4.72%
• 1Y: 12.02%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NVBW vs. PBMR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NVBW Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Nov ETF	4.52%	9.25%	6.72%
PBMR PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - March	4.60%	10.89%	9.62%

Correlation

The correlation between NVBW and PBMR is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 1, 2024	0.87

The correlation between NVBW and PBMR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NVBW vs. PBMR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NVBW

NVBW Risk / Return Rank: 76
NVBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
NVBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
NVBW Omega Ratio Rank: 84
NVBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
NVBW Martin Ratio Rank: 79

PBMR

PBMR Risk / Return Rank: 89
PBMR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
PBMR Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
PBMR Omega Ratio Rank: 93
PBMR Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
PBMR Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

NVBW vs. PBMR - 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 20 ETF - March (PBMR). 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	PBMR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.19	2.76	-0.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.20	4.16	-0.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.60	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.78	3.63	-0.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.92	20.81	-6.89

NVBW vs. PBMR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NVBW Sharpe Ratio is 2.19, which is comparable to the PBMR Sharpe Ratio of 2.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NVBW and PBMR, 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. PBMR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NVBW drawdown since its inception was -8.41%, which is greater than PBMR's maximum drawdown of -7.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NVBW and PBMR.

Drawdown Indicators

	NVBW	PBMR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.41%	-7.64%	-0.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.03%	-3.33%	-0.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.41%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.73%	-0.61%	-0.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.74%	-0.50%	-0.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.80%	0.58%	+0.22%

Volatility

NVBW vs. PBMR - Volatility Comparison

Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Nov ETF (NVBW) has a higher volatility of 1.69% compared to PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - March (PBMR) at 1.41%. This indicates that NVBW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PBMR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NVBW	PBMR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.69%	1.41%	+0.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.41%	3.62%	+0.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.14%	4.39%	+0.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.93%	6.58%	+0.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.93%	6.58%	+0.35%

NVBW vs. PBMR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

NVBW vs. PBMR - Dividend Comparison

Neither NVBW nor PBMR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NVBW and PBMR in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, NVBW and PBMR 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 PBMR?

NVBW has higher volatility (1.69%) compared to PBMR (1.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NVBW dropped -8.41% vs PBMR's -7.64%.

Which ETF is better, NVBW or PBMR?

On 1-year performance, PBMR leads with 12.02% vs 11.16% for NVBW. On fees, PBMR is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PBMR 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 PBMR?

Over the 1-year period, PBMR has performed better with a 12.02% return vs 11.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NVBW or PBMR?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between NVBW and PBMR?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PBMR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.76 vs 2.19), 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.