PJBF vs. ACWV

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

PJBF (PGIM Jennison Better Future ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds. PJBF is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. Over the past year, PJBF returned 12.05% vs 6.41% for ACWV. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PJBF charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

PJBF vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Jennison Better Future ETF (PJBF) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PJBF achieves a 7.30% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.83% return.

PJBF

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 0.38%
• 6M: 5.52%
• YTD: 7.30%
• 1Y: 12.05%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ACWV

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 0.92%
• 6M: 2.66%
• YTD: 3.83%
• 1Y: 6.41%
• 3Y*: 9.88%
• 5Y*: 5.49%
• 10Y*: 7.02%

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

PJBF vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PJBF PGIM Jennison Better Future ETF	7.30%	5.13%	19.91%	-0.80%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	3.83%	11.04%	11.38%	1.68%

Correlation

The correlation between PJBF and ACWV is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2023	0.35

PJBF vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PJBF	ACWV
Technology	40.0%	25.8%
Industrials	16.5%	8.1%
Consumer Cyclical	13.8%	5.1%
Communication Services	11.5%	11.9%
Healthcare	11.5%	13.0%
Financial Services	2.5%	13.2%
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	9.8%
Utilities	2.0%	7.3%
Basic Materials	-	1.5%
Energy	-	3.7%
Real Estate	-	0.6%

Return for Risk

PJBF vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

PJBF

PJBF Risk / Return Rank: 20
PJBF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
PJBF Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
PJBF Omega Ratio Rank: 20
PJBF Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
PJBF Martin Ratio Rank: 22

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 26
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 25
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

PJBF vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Jennison Better Future ETF (PJBF) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.

	PJBF	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.55	0.80	-0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.91	1.18	-0.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.15	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.66	1.01	-0.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.06	2.89	-0.83

PJBF vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PJBF Sharpe Ratio is 0.55, which is lower than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PJBF and ACWV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

PJBF vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PJBF drawdown since its inception was -25.67%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PJBF and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	PJBF	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.67%	-28.82%	+3.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.41%	-6.37%	-12.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.56%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.14%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-28.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.97%	-1.52%	-3.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.22%	-3.11%	-2.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.87%	2.22%	+3.65%

Volatility

PJBF vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

PGIM Jennison Better Future ETF (PJBF) has a higher volatility of 9.57% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 3.17%. This indicates that PJBF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PJBF	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.57%	3.17%	+6.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.62%	6.23%	+12.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.94%	8.07%	+13.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.10%	10.27%	+11.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.10%	12.29%	+9.81%

PJBF vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

PJBF has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

PJBF vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

PJBF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.22%, less than ACWV's 1.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.93%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
PJBF PGIM Jennison Better Future ETF	0.22%	0.24%	0.16%	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 PJBF and ACWV in my portfolio?

PJBF and ACWV have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PJBF or ACWV?

PJBF has higher volatility (9.57%) compared to ACWV (3.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PJBF dropped -25.67% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, PJBF or ACWV?

On 1-year performance, PJBF leads with 12.05% vs 6.41% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 3.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PJBF or ACWV?

Over the 1-year period, PJBF has performed better with a 12.05% return vs 6.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PJBF or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for PJBF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PJBF or ACWV?

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.93%, compared with 0.22% for PJBF.

What is the main difference between PJBF and ACWV?

They also come from different issuers: PGIM and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for PJBF and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ACWV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.80 vs 0.55), 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.