PCS vs. LQDW
PCS (PGIM Corporate Bond 0-5 Year ETF) and LQDW (iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds. PCS is actively managed, while LQDW is passively managed. Over the past year, PCS returned 3.68% vs 3.34% for LQDW. Their 0.73 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. PCS charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for LQDW.
Performance
PCS vs. LQDW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PCS achieves a 1.43% return, which is significantly higher than LQDW's 0.40% return.
PCS
- 1D
- -0.04%
- 1M
- -0.20%
- 6M
- 1.06%
- YTD
- 1.43%
- 1Y
- 3.68%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
LQDW
- 1D
- -0.19%
- 1M
- -1.66%
- 6M
- -0.19%
- YTD
- 0.40%
- 1Y
- 3.34%
- 3Y*
- 3.14%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 2.19%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6.26M | $3.68M | $2.25M | |
| $33.09K | $30.68K | $31.15K |
PCS vs. LQDW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
PCS PGIM Corporate Bond 0-5 Year ETF | 1.43% | 2.22% |
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF | 0.40% | 3.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between PCS and LQDW is 0.73, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2025 | 0.73 |
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. LQDW — Risk / Return Rank
PCS
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
LQDW
PCS vs. LQDW - 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 Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW). 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 | LQDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.17 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 1.32 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 4.31 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PCS vs. LQDW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PCS drawdown since its inception was -1.12%, smaller than the maximum LQDW drawdown of -9.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCS and LQDW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PCS | LQDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -1.12% | -9.20% | +8.08% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.12% | -2.59% | +1.47% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -5.68% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.20% | -1.90% | +1.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.14% | -2.28% | +2.14% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 0.80% | — |
Volatility
PCS vs. LQDW - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PCS | LQDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 1.17% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 3.28% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.58% | 3.77% | -2.19% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 1.58% | 5.43% | -3.85% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 1.58% | 5.43% | -3.85% |
PCS vs. LQDW - Expense Ratio Comparison
PCS has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than LQDW's 0.34% expense ratio.
Dividends
PCS vs. LQDW - Dividend Comparison
PCS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.78%, less than LQDW's 12.34% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF | 12.34% | 16.02% | 15.74% | 19.28% | 8.85% |
PCS PGIM Corporate Bond 0-5 Year ETF | 4.78% | 1.92% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
PCS and LQDW 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.
On 1-year performance, PCS leads with 3.68% vs 3.34% for LQDW. 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.
Over the 1-year period, PCS has performed better with a 3.68% return vs 3.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PCS is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for LQDW.
LQDW has the higher dividend yield at 12.34%, compared with 4.78% for PCS.
They also come from different issuers: PGIM and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for PCS and 0.34% for LQDW.
Find the right allocation for PCS and LQDW
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