PJFM vs. EUSA

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

PJFM (PGIM Jennison Focused Mid-Cap ETF) and EUSA (iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. PJFM is actively managed, while EUSA is passively managed. Over the past year, PJFM returned 12.54% vs 15.39% for EUSA. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PJFM charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for EUSA.

Performance

PJFM vs. EUSA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Jennison Focused Mid-Cap ETF (PJFM) and iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF (EUSA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PJFM achieves a 7.70% return, which is significantly lower than EUSA's 10.90% return.

PJFM

• 1D: -0.32%
• 1M: -2.37%
• 6M: 3.03%
• YTD: 7.70%
• 1Y: 12.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EUSA

• 1D: -0.74%
• 1M: 1.87%
• 6M: 7.04%
• YTD: 10.90%
• 1Y: 15.39%
• 3Y*: 13.66%
• 5Y*: 8.11%
• 10Y*: 11.42%

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

PJFM vs. EUSA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PJFM PGIM Jennison Focused Mid-Cap ETF	7.70%	7.50%	15.64%	-0.34%
EUSA iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF	10.90%	10.24%	14.64%	1.21%

Correlation

The correlation between PJFM and EUSA is 0.80, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2023	0.85

The correlation between PJFM and EUSA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

PJFM vs. EUSA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PJFM	EUSA
Industrials	23.8%	15.3%
Financial Services	16.6%	14.7%
Technology	16.4%	20.3%
Utilities	7.5%	5.4%
Consumer Cyclical	7.2%	11.1%
Energy	6.7%	3.8%
Real Estate	6.7%	5.2%
Healthcare	5.9%	10.8%
Basic Materials	5.7%	4.3%
Communication Services	3.4%	4.0%
Consumer Defensive	1.9%	5.3%

Return for Risk

PJFM vs. EUSA — Risk / Return Rank

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

PJFM

PJFM Risk / Return Rank: 29
PJFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
PJFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
PJFM Omega Ratio Rank: 25
PJFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
PJFM Martin Ratio Rank: 36

EUSA

EUSA Risk / Return Rank: 48
EUSA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
EUSA Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
EUSA Omega Ratio Rank: 42
EUSA Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
EUSA Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

PJFM vs. EUSA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Jennison Focused Mid-Cap ETF (PJFM) and iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF (EUSA). 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.

	PJFM	EUSA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.76	1.29	-0.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.21	1.90	-0.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.23	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.17	1.98	-0.81
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.25	7.77	-3.51

PJFM vs. EUSA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PJFM Sharpe Ratio is 0.76, which is lower than the EUSA Sharpe Ratio of 1.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PJFM and EUSA, 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

PJFM vs. EUSA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PJFM drawdown since its inception was -22.84%, smaller than the maximum EUSA drawdown of -39.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PJFM and EUSA.

Drawdown Indicators

	PJFM	EUSA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.84%	-39.16%	+16.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.79%	-7.82%	-2.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.20%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.24%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.16%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.59%	-1.30%	-3.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.67%	-4.57%	+0.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.95%	1.98%	+0.97%

Volatility

PJFM vs. EUSA - Volatility Comparison

PGIM Jennison Focused Mid-Cap ETF (PJFM) has a higher volatility of 4.95% compared to iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF (EUSA) at 2.74%. This indicates that PJFM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EUSA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PJFM	EUSA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.95%	2.74%	+2.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.65%	9.00%	+4.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.58%	11.96%	+4.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.77%	16.97%	+0.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.77%	18.27%	-0.50%

PJFM vs. EUSA - Expense Ratio Comparison

PJFM has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than EUSA's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

PJFM vs. EUSA - Dividend Comparison

PJFM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.58%, less than EUSA's 1.46% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EUSA iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF	1.46%	1.63%	1.47%	1.53%	1.73%	1.23%	1.45%	1.49%	2.01%	1.50%	1.59%	2.21%
PJFM PGIM Jennison Focused Mid-Cap ETF	0.58%	0.62%	0.83%	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 PJFM and EUSA in my portfolio?

PJFM and EUSA have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PJFM or EUSA?

PJFM has higher volatility (4.95%) compared to EUSA (2.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PJFM dropped -22.84% vs EUSA's -39.16%.

Which ETF is better, PJFM or EUSA?

On 1-year performance, EUSA leads with 15.39% vs 12.54% for PJFM. On fees, EUSA is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, EUSA has been the lower-risk option at 2.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PJFM or EUSA?

Over the 1-year period, EUSA has performed better with a 15.39% return vs 12.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PJFM or EUSA?

EUSA is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for PJFM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PJFM or EUSA?

EUSA has the higher dividend yield at 1.46%, compared with 0.58% for PJFM.

What is the main difference between PJFM and EUSA?

They also come from different issuers: PGIM and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for PJFM and 0.09% for EUSA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EUSA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.29 vs 0.76), 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.