PJFG vs. PULS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PJFG (PGIM Jennison Focused Growth ETF) and PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PJFG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by PGIM, while PULS is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, PJFG returned 24.04%/yr vs 5.61%/yr for PULS. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PJFG charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PULS.

Performance

PJFG vs. PULS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Jennison Focused Growth ETF (PJFG) and PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PJFG achieves a 6.64% return, which is significantly higher than PULS's 1.73% return.

PJFG

• 1D: -1.40%
• 1M: 6.58%
• YTD: 6.64%
• 6M: 5.59%
• 1Y: 19.79%
• 3Y*: 24.04%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PULS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 1.73%
• 6M: 2.09%
• 1Y: 4.70%
• 3Y*: 5.61%
• 5Y*: 4.12%
• 10Y*: —

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

PJFG vs. PULS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
PJFG PGIM Jennison Focused Growth ETF	6.64%	16.94%	31.59%	54.23%	-6.69%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	1.73%	4.97%	6.12%	6.26%	0.27%

Correlation

The correlation between PJFG and PULS is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.19
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2022	0.06

The correlation between PJFG and PULS shifts across timeframes, from 0.06 (all time) to 0.19 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PJFG vs. PULS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PJFG	PULS
Technology	48.4%	-
Communication Services	20.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	12.6%	-
Healthcare	6.0%	-
Industrials	4.9%	-
Financial Services	3.4%	1.5%
Consumer Defensive	3.0%	-
Utilities	1.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

PJFG vs. PULS — Risk / Return Rank

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

PJFG

PJFG Risk / Return Rank: 28
PJFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
PJFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
PJFG Omega Ratio Rank: 31
PJFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
PJFG Martin Ratio Rank: 25

PULS

PULS Risk / Return Rank: 100
PULS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
PULS Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
PULS Omega Ratio Rank: 100
PULS Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
PULS Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

PJFG vs. PULS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Jennison Focused Growth ETF (PJFG) and PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS). 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.

	PJFG	PULS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.18	11.41	-10.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.68	32.91	-31.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	7.59	-6.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.05	52.47	-51.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.28	318.56	-315.27
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PJFG vs. PULS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PJFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.18, which is lower than the PULS Sharpe Ratio of 11.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PJFG and PULS, 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

	PJFG	PULS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.18	11.41	-10.23
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	5.92	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.36	2.51	-1.15

Drawdowns

PJFG vs. PULS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PJFG drawdown since its inception was -24.24%, which is greater than PULS's maximum drawdown of -5.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PJFG and PULS.

Drawdown Indicators

	PJFG	PULS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.24%	-5.85%	-18.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.00%	-0.09%	-18.91%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.24%	-0.34%	-23.90%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.79%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.16%	0.00%	-2.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.75%	-0.09%	-3.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.04%	0.01%	+6.03%

Volatility

PJFG vs. PULS - Volatility Comparison

PGIM Jennison Focused Growth ETF (PJFG) has a higher volatility of 4.37% compared to PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) at 0.11%. This indicates that PJFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PULS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PJFG	PULS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.37%	0.11%	+4.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.90%	0.30%	+12.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.83%	0.41%	+16.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.88%	0.70%	+20.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.88%	1.33%	+19.55%

PJFG vs. PULS - Expense Ratio Comparison

PJFG has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than PULS's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

PJFG vs. PULS - Dividend Comparison

PJFG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PULS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.58%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
PJFG PGIM Jennison Focused Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	4.58%	4.78%	5.62%	5.48%	2.30%	1.19%	1.85%	2.69%	1.87%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PJFG and PULS in my portfolio?

PJFG and PULS have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PJFG or PULS?

PJFG has higher volatility (4.37%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PJFG dropped -24.24% vs PULS's -5.85%.

Which ETF is better, PJFG or PULS?

On 3-year performance, PJFG leads with 24.04% vs 5.61% for PULS. On fees, PULS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, PULS has been the lower-risk option at 0.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PJFG or PULS?

Over the 3-year period, PJFG has performed better with a 24.04% return vs 5.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PJFG or PULS?

PULS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for PJFG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PJFG or PULS?

PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.58%, compared with 0.00% for PJFG.

What is the main difference between PJFG and PULS?

PJFG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while PULS is Ultrashort Bond. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for PJFG and 0.15% for PULS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.41 vs 1.18), 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.