PBFB vs. PUSH

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PBFB (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February) and PUSH (PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PBFB is a Options Trading fund actively managed by PGIM, while PUSH is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by PGIM. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PBFB returned 13.63% vs 3.85% for PUSH. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PBFB charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PUSH.

Performance

PBFB vs. PUSH - 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 PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF (PUSH). 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 higher than PUSH's 1.32% return.

PBFB

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

PUSH

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: 1.32%
• 6M: 1.66%
• 1Y: 3.85%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PBFB vs. PUSH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PBFB PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February	4.68%	9.86%	4.75%
PUSH PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF	1.32%	4.16%	1.74%

Correlation

The correlation between PBFB and PUSH is 0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2024	0.04

Return for Risk

PBFB vs. PUSH — 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

PUSH

PUSH Risk / Return Rank: 88
PUSH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
PUSH Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
PUSH Omega Ratio Rank: 94
PUSH Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
PUSH Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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. PUSH - 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 PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF (PUSH). 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	PUSH	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.87	2.54	+0.34
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.27	3.84	+0.43
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.61	1.71	-0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.61	7.72	-4.10
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	19.17	19.17	0.00
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. PUSH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBFB Sharpe Ratio is 2.87, which is comparable to the PUSH Sharpe Ratio of 2.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBFB and PUSH, 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	PUSH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.87	2.54	+0.34
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.67	2.91	-1.24

Drawdowns

PBFB vs. PUSH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBFB drawdown since its inception was -8.65%, which is greater than PUSH's maximum drawdown of -0.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBFB and PUSH.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBFB	PUSH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.65%	-0.85%	-7.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.79%	-0.50%	-3.29%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.15%	0.00%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.60%	-0.11%	-0.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.71%	0.20%	+0.51%

Volatility

PBFB vs. PUSH - Volatility Comparison

PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February (PBFB) has a higher volatility of 0.75% compared to PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF (PUSH) at 0.30%. This indicates that PBFB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PUSH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PBFB	PUSH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.75%	0.30%	+0.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.71%	0.98%	+2.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.77%	1.52%	+3.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.39%	1.30%	+5.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.39%	1.30%	+5.09%

PBFB vs. PUSH - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBFB has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than PUSH's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

PBFB vs. PUSH - Dividend Comparison

PBFB has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PUSH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.23%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
PBFB PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - February	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PUSH PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF	3.23%	3.45%	1.86%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PBFB and PUSH in my portfolio?

PBFB and PUSH have a correlation of 0.06, 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 PUSH?

PBFB has higher volatility (0.75%) compared to PUSH (0.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBFB dropped -8.65% vs PUSH's -0.85%.

Which ETF is better, PBFB or PUSH?

On 1-year performance, PBFB leads with 13.63% vs 3.85% for PUSH. On fees, PUSH is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, PUSH has been the lower-risk option at 0.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PBFB or PUSH?

Over the 1-year period, PBFB has performed better with a 13.63% return vs 3.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PBFB or PUSH?

PUSH is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for PBFB.

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

PUSH has the higher dividend yield at 3.23%, compared with 0.00% for PBFB.

What is the main difference between PBFB and PUSH?

PBFB is categorized as Options Trading, while PUSH is Municipal Bonds. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for PBFB and 0.15% for PUSH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PBFB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.87 vs 2.54), 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.