PFRL vs. BDCX

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

PFRL (PGIM Floating Rate Income ETF) and BDCX (ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - PFRL is a Bank Loan fund actively managed by PGIM, while BDCX is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the MVIS US Business Development Companies (150%). PFRL is actively managed, while BDCX is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PFRL returned 8.62%/yr vs 2.98%/yr for BDCX. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PFRL charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BDCX.

Performance

PFRL vs. BDCX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Floating Rate Income ETF (PFRL) and ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN (BDCX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PFRL achieves a 1.96% return, which is significantly higher than BDCX's -11.90% return.

PFRL

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.48%
• YTD: 1.96%
• 6M: 2.68%
• 1Y: 6.12%
• 3Y*: 8.62%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BDCX

• 1D: -0.44%
• 1M: -5.50%
• YTD: -11.90%
• 6M: -14.62%
• 1Y: -18.01%
• 3Y*: 2.98%
• 5Y*: 1.22%
• 10Y*: —

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

PFRL vs. BDCX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
PFRL PGIM Floating Rate Income ETF	1.96%	6.25%	9.40%	13.75%	1.27%
BDCX ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN	-11.90%	-10.42%	15.32%	35.33%	-5.31%

Correlation

The correlation between PFRL and BDCX is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.35
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 25, 2022	0.34

Return for Risk

PFRL vs. BDCX — Risk / Return Rank

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

PFRL

PFRL Risk / Return Rank: 92
PFRL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
PFRL Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
PFRL Omega Ratio Rank: 95
PFRL Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
PFRL Martin Ratio Rank: 87

BDCX

BDCX Risk / Return Rank: 4
BDCX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
BDCX Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
BDCX Omega Ratio Rank: 4
BDCX Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
BDCX Martin Ratio Rank: 5

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.

PFRL vs. BDCX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Floating Rate Income ETF (PFRL) and ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN (BDCX). 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.

	PFRL	BDCX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.19	-0.66	+3.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.59	-0.83	+5.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.69	0.91	+0.78
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.90	-0.59	+5.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.66	-1.04	+17.70
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PFRL vs. BDCX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PFRL Sharpe Ratio is 3.19, which is higher than the BDCX Sharpe Ratio of -0.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PFRL and BDCX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PFRL	BDCX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.19	-0.66	+3.85
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.05	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.66	0.43	+1.23

Drawdowns

PFRL vs. BDCX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PFRL drawdown since its inception was -8.83%, smaller than the maximum BDCX drawdown of -34.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PFRL and BDCX.

Drawdown Indicators

	PFRL	BDCX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.83%	-34.96%	+26.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.25%	-30.46%	+29.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.83%	-33.39%	+24.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-34.96%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.05%	-28.40%	+28.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.44%	-10.10%	+9.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.37%	17.35%	-16.98%

Volatility

PFRL vs. BDCX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM Floating Rate Income ETF (PFRL) is 0.42%, while ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN (BDCX) has a volatility of 8.65%. This indicates that PFRL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BDCX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PFRL	BDCX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.42%	8.65%	-8.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.58%	22.81%	-21.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.93%	27.60%	-25.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.85%	26.59%	-21.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.85%	26.94%	-22.09%

PFRL vs. BDCX - Expense Ratio Comparison

PFRL has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is lower than BDCX's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

PFRL vs. BDCX - Dividend Comparison

PFRL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.83%, less than BDCX's 20.31% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BDCX ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN	20.31%	19.17%	15.28%	14.71%	17.47%	11.52%	6.32%
PFRL PGIM Floating Rate Income ETF	6.83%	7.34%	8.96%	9.84%	3.55%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PFRL and BDCX in my portfolio?

PFRL and BDCX have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PFRL or BDCX?

BDCX has higher volatility (8.65%) compared to PFRL (0.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PFRL dropped -8.83% vs BDCX's -34.96%.

Which ETF is better, PFRL or BDCX?

On 3-year performance, PFRL leads with 8.62% vs 2.98% for BDCX. On fees, PFRL is cheaper at 0.72% per year. On volatility, PFRL has been the lower-risk option at 0.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PFRL or BDCX?

Over the 3-year period, PFRL has performed better with a 8.62% return vs 2.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PFRL or BDCX?

PFRL is cheaper with a 0.72% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BDCX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PFRL or BDCX?

BDCX has the higher dividend yield at 20.31%, compared with 6.83% for PFRL.

What is the main difference between PFRL and BDCX?

PFRL is categorized as Bank Loan, while BDCX is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: PGIM and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for PFRL and 0.95% for BDCX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PFRL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs -0.66), 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.