PQAP vs. APXM
PQAP (PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - April) and APXM (FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PQAP returned 21.47% vs 5.49% for APXM. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PQAP charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for APXM.
Performance
PQAP vs. APXM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PQAP achieves a 12.09% return, which is significantly higher than APXM's 2.11% return.
PQAP
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- 2.44%
- YTD
- 12.09%
- 6M
- 13.01%
- 1Y
- 21.47%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
APXM
- 1D
- -0.06%
- 1M
- 0.79%
- YTD
- 2.11%
- 6M
- 2.59%
- 1Y
- 5.49%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PQAP vs. APXM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
PQAP PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - April | 12.09% | 20.51% |
APXM FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April | 2.11% | 5.40% |
Correlation
The correlation between PQAP and APXM is 0.70, 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 | 0.70 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 22, 2025 | 0.71 |
The correlation between PQAP and APXM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
PQAP vs. APXM — Risk / Return Rank
PQAP
APXM
PQAP vs. APXM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - April (PQAP) and FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April (APXM). 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.
| PQAP | APXM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.62 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 2.20 | 2.60 | -0.40 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 15.50 | 20.36 | -4.87 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 86.25 | 110.99 | -24.74 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| PQAP | APXM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.86 | 5.47 | -0.62 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.76 | 5.70 | -3.94 |
Drawdowns
PQAP vs. APXM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PQAP drawdown since its inception was -10.79%, which is greater than APXM's maximum drawdown of -0.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PQAP and APXM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PQAP | APXM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -10.79% | -0.40% | -10.39% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.39% | -0.27% | -1.12% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.12% | -0.06% | -0.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.60% | -0.03% | -0.57% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.25% | 0.05% | +0.20% |
Volatility
PQAP vs. APXM - Volatility Comparison
PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - April (PQAP) has a higher volatility of 1.02% compared to FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April (APXM) at 0.42%. This indicates that PQAP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than APXM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PQAP | APXM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.02% | 0.42% | +0.60% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.09% | 0.78% | +2.31% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.45% | 1.01% | +3.44% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 11.03% | 1.20% | +9.83% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 11.03% | 1.20% | +9.83% |
PQAP vs. APXM - Expense Ratio Comparison
PQAP has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than APXM's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
PQAP vs. APXM - Dividend Comparison
PQAP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.02%, while APXM has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
APXM FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April | 0.00% | 0.00% |
PQAP PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - April | 0.02% | 0.02% |
Frequently Asked Questions
PQAP and APXM have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
PQAP has higher volatility (1.02%) compared to APXM (0.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PQAP dropped -10.79% vs APXM's -0.40%.
On 1-year performance, PQAP leads with 21.47% vs 5.49% for APXM. On fees, PQAP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, APXM has been the lower-risk option at 0.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, PQAP has performed better with a 21.47% return vs 5.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PQAP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for APXM.
PQAP has the higher dividend yield at 0.02%, compared with 0.00% for APXM.
They also come from different issuers: PGIM and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for PQAP and 0.85% for APXM.
APXM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.47 vs 4.86), 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.
Find the right allocation for PQAP and APXM
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