PBJA vs. XMAR
PBJA (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - January) and XMAR (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PBJA returned 12.85% vs 12.89% for XMAR. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PBJA charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for XMAR.
Performance
PBJA vs. XMAR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PBJA achieves a 4.34% return, which is significantly lower than XMAR's 6.65% return.
PBJA
- 1D
- -0.14%
- 1M
- 1.54%
- YTD
- 4.34%
- 6M
- 5.14%
- 1Y
- 12.85%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
XMAR
- 1D
- -0.01%
- 1M
- 1.37%
- YTD
- 6.65%
- 6M
- 7.38%
- 1Y
- 12.89%
- 3Y*
- 11.18%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PBJA vs. XMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
PBJA PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - January | 4.34% | 10.33% | 12.18% |
XMAR FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March | 6.65% | 10.30% | 10.30% |
Correlation
The correlation between PBJA and XMAR is 0.82, 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 | 0.82 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 3, 2024 | 0.80 |
The correlation between PBJA and XMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
PBJA vs. XMAR — Risk / Return Rank
PBJA
XMAR
PBJA vs. XMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - January (PBJA) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR). 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.
| PBJA | XMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.80 | 4.31 | -1.52 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 4.18 | 7.46 | -3.28 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.60 | 2.20 | -0.60 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.60 | 8.76 | -5.16 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 19.59 | 66.63 | -47.05 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| PBJA | XMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.80 | 4.31 | -1.52 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.76 | 2.13 | -0.37 |
Drawdowns
PBJA vs. XMAR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PBJA drawdown since its inception was -8.50%, which is greater than XMAR's maximum drawdown of -7.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBJA and XMAR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PBJA | XMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -8.50% | -7.29% | -1.21% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.58% | -1.48% | -2.10% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -7.29% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.14% | -0.16% | +0.02% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.55% | -0.30% | -0.25% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.66% | 0.19% | +0.47% |
Volatility
PBJA vs. XMAR - Volatility Comparison
PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 20 ETF - January (PBJA) has a higher volatility of 0.64% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - March (XMAR) at 0.58%. This indicates that PBJA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PBJA | XMAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.64% | 0.58% | +0.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.71% | 2.40% | +1.31% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.62% | 3.01% | +1.61% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.38% | 5.55% | +0.83% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.38% | 5.55% | +0.83% |
PBJA vs. XMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison
PBJA has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than XMAR's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
PBJA vs. XMAR - Dividend Comparison
Neither PBJA nor XMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
PBJA and XMAR have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
PBJA has higher volatility (0.64%) compared to XMAR (0.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBJA dropped -8.50% vs XMAR's -7.29%.
On 1-year performance, XMAR leads with 12.89% vs 12.85% for PBJA. On fees, PBJA is cheaper at 0.50% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, XMAR has performed better with a 12.89% return vs 12.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PBJA is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for XMAR.
PBJA and XMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: PGIM and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for PBJA and 0.85% for XMAR.
XMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.31 vs 2.80), 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.
Find the right allocation for PBJA and XMAR
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer