PCS vs. CEMB

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

PCS (PGIM Corporate Bond 0-5 Year ETF) and CEMB (iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds. PCS is actively managed, while CEMB is passively managed. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PCS charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CEMB.

Performance

PCS vs. CEMB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Corporate Bond 0-5 Year ETF (PCS) and iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PCS achieves a 1.25% return, which is significantly lower than CEMB's 1.54% return.

PCS

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: 0.24%
• YTD: 1.25%
• 6M: 1.66%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CEMB

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 1.54%
• 6M: 1.97%
• 1Y: 7.07%
• 3Y*: 7.26%
• 5Y*: 1.98%
• 10Y*: 3.53%

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

PCS vs. CEMB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
PCS PGIM Corporate Bond 0-5 Year ETF	1.25%	2.22%
CEMB iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF	1.54%	3.15%

Correlation

The correlation between PCS and CEMB is 0.69, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 4, 2025	0.69

Return for Risk

PCS vs. CEMB — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEMB

CEMB Risk / Return Rank: 68
CEMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
CEMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
CEMB Omega Ratio Rank: 78
CEMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
CEMB Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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. CEMB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Corporate Bond 0-5 Year ETF (PCS) and iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB). 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PCS	CEMB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	2.33	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.35	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.56	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.64	0.49	+2.15

Drawdowns

PCS vs. CEMB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCS drawdown since its inception was -1.12%, smaller than the maximum CEMB drawdown of -20.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCS and CEMB.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCS	CEMB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.12%	-20.84%	+19.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-2.88%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-3.85%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.48%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-20.84%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-0.20%	+0.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.13%	-3.65%	+3.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.66%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	PCS	CEMB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	1.06%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	2.42%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.59%	3.06%	-1.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.59%	5.63%	-4.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.59%	6.30%	-4.71%

PCS vs. CEMB - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

PCS vs. CEMB - Dividend Comparison

PCS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.01%, less than CEMB's 5.13% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CEMB iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF	5.13%	5.14%	5.11%	4.77%	4.29%	3.51%	3.86%	4.19%	4.66%	4.06%	4.26%	4.76%
PCS PGIM Corporate Bond 0-5 Year ETF	4.01%	1.92%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCS and CEMB in my portfolio?

PCS and CEMB have a correlation of 0.69, 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 CEMB?

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 CEMB?

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

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

CEMB has the higher dividend yield at 5.13%, compared with 4.01% for PCS.

What is the main difference between PCS and CEMB?

They also come from different issuers: PGIM and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for PCS and 0.50% for CEMB.