PBL vs. FPACX

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

PBL (PGIM Portfolio Ballast ETF) and FPACX (FPA Crescent Fund) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Over the past 3 years, PBL returned 14.40%/yr vs 14.69%/yr for FPACX. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PBL charges 0.45%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for FPACX.

Performance

PBL vs. FPACX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Portfolio Ballast ETF (PBL) and FPA Crescent Fund (FPACX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PBL achieves a 7.15% return, which is significantly higher than FPACX's 5.71% return.

PBL

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 0.73%
• YTD: 7.15%
• 6M: 6.87%
• 1Y: 18.53%
• 3Y*: 14.40%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FPACX

• 1D: 0.80%
• 1M: 1.67%
• YTD: 5.71%
• 6M: 5.68%
• 1Y: 17.84%
• 3Y*: 14.69%
• 5Y*: 9.51%
• 10Y*: 10.25%

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

PBL vs. FPACX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
PBL PGIM Portfolio Ballast ETF	7.15%	12.35%	16.70%	14.28%	-4.02%
FPACX FPA Crescent Fund	5.71%	17.69%	12.42%	20.30%	-2.34%

Correlation

The correlation between PBL and FPACX is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2022	0.82

The correlation between PBL and FPACX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

PBL vs. FPACX — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBL

PBL Risk / Return Rank: 64
PBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
PBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
PBL Omega Ratio Rank: 59
PBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
PBL Martin Ratio Rank: 70

FPACX

FPACX Risk / Return Rank: 50
FPACX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
FPACX Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
FPACX Omega Ratio Rank: 53
FPACX Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
FPACX Martin Ratio Rank: 46

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.

PBL vs. FPACX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Portfolio Ballast ETF (PBL) and FPA Crescent Fund (FPACX). 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.

	PBL	FPACX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.00	1.96	+0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	2.85	-0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.37	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.20	2.40	+0.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.53	9.05	+3.48

PBL vs. FPACX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBL Sharpe Ratio is 2.00, which is comparable to the FPACX Sharpe Ratio of 1.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBL and FPACX, 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

PBL vs. FPACX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBL drawdown since its inception was -11.69%, smaller than the maximum FPACX drawdown of -31.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBL and FPACX.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBL	FPACX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.69%	-31.60%	+19.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.82%	-7.37%	+1.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.69%	-10.95%	-0.74%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.47%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-29.46%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.90%	-0.78%	-0.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.66%	-3.87%	+2.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.48%	1.95%	-0.47%

Volatility

PBL vs. FPACX - Volatility Comparison

PGIM Portfolio Ballast ETF (PBL) and FPA Crescent Fund (FPACX) have volatilities of 3.41% and 3.31%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PBL	FPACX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.41%	3.31%	+0.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.06%	7.18%	-0.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.33%	9.03%	+0.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.91%	11.93%	-2.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.91%	13.22%	-3.31%

PBL vs. FPACX - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBL has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than FPACX's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

PBL vs. FPACX - Dividend Comparison

PBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.07%, less than FPACX's 9.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FPACX FPA Crescent Fund	9.08%	9.60%	7.95%	3.72%	0.77%	11.62%	4.80%	4.65%	8.87%	3.70%	4.98%	6.34%
PBL PGIM Portfolio Ballast ETF	2.07%	2.21%	6.89%	7.92%	0.16%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PBL and FPACX in my portfolio?

PBL and FPACX have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PBL or FPACX?

PBL has higher volatility (3.41%) compared to FPACX (3.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBL dropped -11.69% vs FPACX's -31.60%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PBL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.00 vs 1.96), 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.