PGRI vs. CEFS
PGRI (Putnam International Stock ETF) and CEFS (Saba Closed-End Funds ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PGRI is a Actively Managed fund actively managed by Putnam, while CEFS is a Event Driven fund actively managed by Exchange Traded Concepts. Both are actively managed. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PGRI charges 0.55%/yr vs 2.61%/yr for CEFS.
Performance
PGRI vs. CEFS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PGRI achieves a 8.61% return, which is significantly lower than CEFS's 13.86% return.
PGRI
- 1D
- 0.26%
- 1M
- 0.82%
- 6M
- 6.03%
- YTD
- 8.61%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CEFS
- 1D
- 1.13%
- 1M
- 1.39%
- 6M
- 14.21%
- YTD
- 13.86%
- 1Y
- 22.27%
- 3Y*
- 20.75%
- 5Y*
- 13.76%
- 10Y*
- —
PGRI vs. CEFS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
PGRI Putnam International Stock ETF | 8.61% | -1.11% |
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF | 13.86% | 3.70% |
Correlation
The correlation between PGRI and CEFS is 0.66, 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 Oct 23, 2025 | 0.66 |
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
PGRI vs. CEFS — Risk / Return Rank
PGRI
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
CEFS
PGRI vs. CEFS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Putnam International Stock ETF (PGRI) and Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS). 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.
| PGRI | CEFS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.39 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 3.94 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 14.91 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PGRI vs. CEFS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PGRI drawdown since its inception was -12.87%, smaller than the maximum CEFS drawdown of -38.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PGRI and CEFS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PGRI | CEFS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -12.87% | -38.99% | +26.12% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -5.67% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -13.37% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -16.85% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.58% | -1.59% | -1.99% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.04% | -3.64% | +0.60% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.50% | — |
Volatility
PGRI vs. CEFS - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PGRI | CEFS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 4.09% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 9.16% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.77% | 10.64% | +10.13% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.77% | 13.22% | +7.55% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.77% | 15.33% | +5.44% |
PGRI vs. CEFS - Expense Ratio Comparison
PGRI has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than CEFS's 2.61% expense ratio.
Dividends
PGRI vs. CEFS - Dividend Comparison
PGRI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.11%, less than CEFS's 7.13% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF | 7.13% | 7.84% | 8.79% | 9.20% | 11.32% | 10.73% | 8.61% | 8.10% | 10.43% | 5.02% |
PGRI Putnam International Stock ETF | 0.11% | 0.12% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
PGRI and CEFS have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, PGRI is cheaper at 0.55% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
PGRI is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 2.61% for CEFS.
CEFS has the higher dividend yield at 7.13%, compared with 0.11% for PGRI.
PGRI is categorized as Actively Managed, while CEFS is Event Driven. They also come from different issuers: Putnam and Exchange Traded Concepts. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for PGRI and 2.61% for CEFS.
Find the right allocation for PGRI and CEFS
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