PCS vs. BUFP

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

PCS (PGIM Corporate Bond 0-5 Year ETF) and BUFP (PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PCS is a Corporate Bonds fund actively managed by PGIM, while BUFP is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the S&P 500. PCS is actively managed, while BUFP is passively managed. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PCS charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for BUFP.

Performance

PCS vs. BUFP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Corporate Bond 0-5 Year ETF (PCS) and PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PCS achieves a 1.42% return, which is significantly lower than BUFP's 5.50% return.

PCS

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 0.46%
• YTD: 1.42%
• 6M: 1.52%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BUFP

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: -0.22%
• YTD: 5.50%
• 6M: 5.19%
• 1Y: 14.68%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PCS vs. BUFP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
PCS PGIM Corporate Bond 0-5 Year ETF	1.42%	2.22%
BUFP PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF	5.50%	5.72%

Correlation

The correlation between PCS and BUFP is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2025	0.33

Return for Risk

PCS vs. BUFP — Risk / Return Rank

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

PCS

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

BUFP

BUFP Risk / Return Rank: 84
BUFP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
BUFP Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
BUFP Omega Ratio Rank: 87
BUFP Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
BUFP Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

PCS vs. BUFP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Corporate Bond 0-5 Year ETF (PCS) and PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF (BUFP). 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.

	PCS	BUFP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.32	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.41	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.47	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	3.34	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	18.22	—

Drawdowns

PCS vs. BUFP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCS drawdown since its inception was -1.12%, smaller than the maximum BUFP drawdown of -11.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCS and BUFP.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCS	BUFP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.12%	-11.98%	+10.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-4.41%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.00%	-0.97%	+0.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.13%	-0.99%	+0.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.81%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	PCS	BUFP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	2.12%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	5.14%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.60%	6.40%	-4.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.60%	9.46%	-7.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.60%	9.46%	-7.86%

PCS vs. BUFP - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCS has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCS vs. BUFP - Dividend Comparison

PCS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.00%, more than BUFP's 0.01% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BUFP PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF	0.01%	0.01%	0.02%
PCS PGIM Corporate Bond 0-5 Year ETF	4.00%	1.92%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCS and BUFP in my portfolio?

PCS and BUFP have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, PCS or BUFP?

On fees, PCS is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, PCS or BUFP?

PCS is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for BUFP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PCS or BUFP?

PCS has the higher dividend yield at 4.00%, compared with 0.01% for BUFP.

What is the main difference between PCS and BUFP?

PCS is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while BUFP is Defined Outcome. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for PCS and 0.50% for BUFP.