PCS vs. BUFP
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
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PCS achieves a 1.16% return, which is significantly lower than BUFP's 6.23% return.
PCS
- 1D
- -0.08%
- 1M
- 0.24%
- YTD
- 1.16%
- 6M
- 1.50%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BUFP
- 1D
- -0.22%
- 1M
- 2.04%
- YTD
- 6.23%
- 6M
- 7.00%
- 1Y
- 17.24%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PCS vs. BUFP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
PCS PGIM Corporate Bond 0-5 Year ETF | 1.16% | 2.22% |
BUFP PGIM Laddered S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF | 6.23% | 6.65% |
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 4, 2025 | 0.33 |
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
PCS vs. BUFP — Risk / Return Rank
PCS
BUFP
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.
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| PCS | BUFP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 2.77 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 2.58 | 1.40 | +1.18 |
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.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PCS | BUFP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -1.12% | -11.98% | +10.86% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -4.41% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.13% | -0.22% | +0.09% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.13% | -1.00% | +0.87% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 0.79% | — |
Volatility
PCS vs. BUFP - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PCS | BUFP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 0.95% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 4.82% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.59% | 6.27% | -4.68% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 1.59% | 9.49% | -7.90% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 1.59% | 9.49% | -7.90% |
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 4.01%, 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 | 4.01% | 1.92% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
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.
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.
PCS is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for BUFP.
PCS has the higher dividend yield at 4.01%, compared with 0.01% for 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.
Find the right allocation for PCS and BUFP
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