PBAP vs. BUFC

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April (PBAP) and AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC).

PBAP and BUFC are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. PBAP is an actively managed fund by PGIM. It was launched on Mar 28, 2024. BUFC is an actively managed fund by AllianceBernstein. It was launched on Dec 12, 2023.

Performance

PBAP vs. BUFC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April (PBAP) and AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

PBAP vs. BUFC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PBAP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April	1.48%	6.34%	8.88%
BUFC AB Conservative Buffer ETF	-1.68%	5.50%	7.43%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PBAP achieves a 1.48% return, which is significantly higher than BUFC's -1.68% return.

PBAP

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 1.08%
• YTD: 1.48%
• 6M: 3.46%
• 1Y: 10.49%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BUFC

• 1D: 1.03%
• 1M: -1.19%
• YTD: -1.68%
• 6M: 0.01%
• 1Y: 5.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PBAP vs. BUFC - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBAP has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFC's 0.69% expense ratio.

BUFC

AB Conservative Buffer ETF

PBAP

PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April

Return for Risk

PBAP vs. BUFC — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBAP

PBAP Risk / Return Rank: 84
PBAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
PBAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
PBAP Omega Ratio Rank: 95
PBAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
PBAP Martin Ratio Rank: 93

BUFC

BUFC Risk / Return Rank: 42
BUFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
BUFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
BUFC Omega Ratio Rank: 45
BUFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
BUFC Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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.

PBAP vs. BUFC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April (PBAP) and AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC). 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.

	PBAP	BUFC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.46	0.70	+0.76
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.19	1.11	+1.08
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.18	+0.31
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.91	0.99	+0.93
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	13.78	5.24	+8.54
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PBAP vs. BUFC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBAP Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is higher than the BUFC Sharpe Ratio of 0.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBAP and BUFC, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PBAP	BUFC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.46	0.70	+0.76
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.15	1.13	+0.02

Correlation

The correlation between PBAP and BUFC is 0.79, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

PBAP vs. BUFC - Dividend Comparison

Neither PBAP nor BUFC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

PBAP vs. BUFC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBAP drawdown since its inception was -9.70%, which is greater than BUFC's maximum drawdown of -8.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBAP and BUFC.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBAP	BUFC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.70%	-8.29%	-1.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.83%	-5.29%	-0.54%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-2.63%	+2.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.86%	-0.78%	-0.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.81%	0.99%	-0.18%

Volatility

PBAP vs. BUFC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - April (PBAP) is 0.84%, while AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) has a volatility of 1.87%. This indicates that PBAP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUFC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PBAP	BUFC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.84%	1.87%	-1.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.34%	3.56%	-1.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.26%	7.30%	-0.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.33%	5.77%	+1.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.33%	5.77%	+1.56%