PBFB vs. APRW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PBFB (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February) and APRW (AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PBFB returned 13.63% vs 12.59% for APRW. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PBFB charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for APRW.

Performance

PBFB vs. APRW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February (PBFB) and AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PBFB achieves a 4.68% return, which is significantly lower than APRW's 6.27% return.

PBFB

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 1.70%
• YTD: 4.68%
• 6M: 5.66%
• 1Y: 13.63%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

APRW

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 1.28%
• YTD: 6.27%
• 6M: 7.02%
• 1Y: 12.59%
• 3Y*: 10.31%
• 5Y*: 7.12%
• 10Y*: —

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

PBFB vs. APRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PBFB PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February	4.68%	9.86%	10.00%
APRW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF	6.27%	6.18%	9.98%

Correlation

The correlation between PBFB and APRW is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2024	0.83

The correlation between PBFB and APRW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

PBFB vs. APRW — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBFB

PBFB Risk / Return Rank: 86
PBFB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
PBFB Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
PBFB Omega Ratio Rank: 92
PBFB Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
PBFB Martin Ratio Rank: 88

APRW

APRW Risk / Return Rank: 98
APRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
APRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
APRW Omega Ratio Rank: 98
APRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
APRW Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

PBFB vs. APRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February (PBFB) and AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW). 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.

	PBFB	APRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.87	4.83	-1.95
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.27	8.87	-4.60
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.61	2.23	-0.62
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.61	16.82	-13.21
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	19.17	86.04	-66.87
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PBFB vs. APRW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBFB Sharpe Ratio is 2.87, which is lower than the APRW Sharpe Ratio of 4.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBFB and APRW, 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

	PBFB	APRW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.87	4.83	-1.95
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.06	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.67	1.15	+0.52

Drawdowns

PBFB vs. APRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBFB drawdown since its inception was -8.65%, smaller than the maximum APRW drawdown of -9.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBFB and APRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBFB	APRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.65%	-9.61%	+0.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.79%	-0.75%	-3.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.61%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-9.61%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.15%	-0.09%	-0.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.60%	-1.12%	+0.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.71%	0.15%	+0.56%

Volatility

PBFB vs. APRW - Volatility Comparison

PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February (PBFB) has a higher volatility of 0.75% compared to AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF (APRW) at 0.60%. This indicates that PBFB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than APRW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PBFB	APRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.75%	0.60%	+0.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.71%	1.84%	+1.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.77%	2.62%	+2.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.39%	6.72%	-0.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.39%	6.41%	-0.02%

PBFB vs. APRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBFB has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than APRW's 0.74% expense ratio.

Dividends

PBFB vs. APRW - Dividend Comparison

Neither PBFB nor APRW has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
APRW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Apr ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	3.67%
PBFB PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PBFB and APRW in my portfolio?

PBFB and APRW have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PBFB or APRW?

PBFB has higher volatility (0.75%) compared to APRW (0.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBFB dropped -8.65% vs APRW's -9.61%.

Which ETF is better, PBFB or APRW?

On 1-year performance, PBFB leads with 13.63% vs 12.59% for APRW. On fees, PBFB is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, APRW has been the lower-risk option at 0.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PBFB or APRW?

Over the 1-year period, PBFB has performed better with a 13.63% return vs 12.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PBFB or APRW?

PBFB is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for APRW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PBFB or APRW?

PBFB and APRW have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between PBFB and APRW?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

APRW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.83 vs 2.87), 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.