PMFB vs. PULS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PMFB (PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - February) and PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PMFB is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by PGIM, while PULS is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PMFB returned 8.06% vs 4.70% for PULS. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PMFB charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PULS.

Performance

PMFB vs. PULS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - February (PMFB) 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, PMFB achieves a 2.56% return, which is significantly higher than PULS's 1.73% return.

PMFB

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.80%
• YTD: 2.56%
• 6M: 3.26%
• 1Y: 8.06%
• 3Y*: —
• 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)

PMFB vs. PULS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
PMFB PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - February	2.56%	6.28%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	1.73%	4.49%

Correlation

The correlation between PMFB and PULS 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 Feb 4, 2025	0.21

Return for Risk

PMFB vs. PULS — Risk / Return Rank

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

PMFB

PMFB Risk / Return Rank: 95
PMFB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
PMFB Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
PMFB Omega Ratio Rank: 97
PMFB Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
PMFB Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

PMFB vs. PULS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - February (PMFB) 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.

	PMFB	PULS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.83	11.41	-7.58
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	6.15	32.91	-26.76
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.88	7.59	-5.71
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.04	52.47	-46.43
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	31.52	318.56	-287.04
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PMFB vs. PULS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PMFB Sharpe Ratio is 3.83, which is lower than the PULS Sharpe Ratio of 11.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PMFB 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

	PMFB	PULS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.83	11.41	-7.58
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	5.92	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.43	2.51	-0.08

Drawdowns

PMFB vs. PULS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PMFB drawdown since its inception was -2.94%, smaller than the maximum PULS drawdown of -5.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PMFB and PULS.

Drawdown Indicators

	PMFB	PULS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.94%	-5.85%	+2.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.34%	-0.09%	-1.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.34%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.79%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.06%	0.00%	-0.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.37%	-0.09%	-0.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.26%	0.01%	+0.25%

Volatility

PMFB vs. PULS - Volatility Comparison

PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - February (PMFB) has a higher volatility of 0.37% compared to PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) at 0.11%. This indicates that PMFB'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

	PMFB	PULS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.37%	0.11%	+0.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.43%	0.30%	+1.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.12%	0.41%	+1.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.77%	0.70%	+2.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.77%	1.33%	+1.44%

PMFB vs. PULS - Expense Ratio Comparison

PMFB has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than PULS's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

PMFB vs. PULS - Dividend Comparison

PMFB 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
PMFB PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - February	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 PMFB and PULS in my portfolio?

PMFB and PULS 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, PMFB or PULS?

PMFB has higher volatility (0.37%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PMFB dropped -2.94% vs PULS's -5.85%.

Which ETF is better, PMFB or PULS?

On 1-year performance, PMFB leads with 8.06% vs 4.70% 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, PMFB or PULS?

Over the 1-year period, PMFB has performed better with a 8.06% return vs 4.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PMFB or PULS?

PULS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for PMFB.

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

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

What is the main difference between PMFB and PULS?

PMFB is categorized as Defined Outcome, while PULS is Ultrashort Bond. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for PMFB and 0.15% for PULS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.41 vs 3.83), 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.