PULS vs. COST

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) is Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM, while COST (Costco Wholesale Corporation) is a stock. Over the past 5 years, PULS returned 4.14%/yr vs 22.12%/yr for COST. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

PULS vs. COST - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PULS achieves a 1.88% return, which is significantly lower than COST's 14.24% return.

PULS

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.40%
• YTD: 1.88%
• 6M: 2.10%
• 1Y: 4.70%
• 3Y*: 5.59%
• 5Y*: 4.14%
• 10Y*: —

COST

• 1D: 0.68%
• 1M: -4.91%
• YTD: 14.24%
• 6M: 11.38%
• 1Y: -1.48%
• 3Y*: 25.12%
• 5Y*: 22.12%
• 10Y*: 22.27%

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

PULS vs. COST - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	1.88%	4.97%	6.12%	6.26%	1.52%	0.48%	1.47%	2.97%	1.71%
COST Costco Wholesale Corporation	14.24%	-5.39%	39.62%	49.00%	-19.05%	51.82%	32.67%	45.70%	11.33%

Correlation

The correlation between PULS and COST is 0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.05
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.06
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 10, 2018	0.06

Return for Risk

PULS vs. COST — Risk / Return Rank

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

PULS

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

COST

COST Risk / Return Rank: 37
COST Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
COST Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
COST Omega Ratio Rank: 32
COST Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
COST Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

PULS vs. COST - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) and Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST). 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.

	PULS	COST	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	11.41	-0.08	+11.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	32.91	0.02	+32.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	7.59	1.00	+6.59
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	52.47	-0.10	+52.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	317.38	-0.22	+317.60

PULS vs. COST - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PULS Sharpe Ratio is 11.41, which is higher than the COST Sharpe Ratio of -0.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PULS and COST, 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

PULS vs. COST - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PULS drawdown since its inception was -5.85%, smaller than the maximum COST drawdown of -53.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PULS and COST.

Drawdown Indicators

	PULS	COST	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.85%	-53.39%	+47.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.09%	-15.14%	+15.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.34%	-20.74%	+20.40%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-0.79%	-31.40%	+30.61%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-31.40%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-10.23%	+10.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.09%	-13.36%	+13.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.01%	6.67%	-6.66%

Volatility

PULS vs. COST - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) is 0.11%, while Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) has a volatility of 7.44%. This indicates that PULS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than COST based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PULS	COST	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.11%	7.44%	-7.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.30%	14.53%	-14.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41%	18.80%	-18.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.70%	22.72%	-22.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.33%	21.95%	-20.62%

Dividends

PULS vs. COST - Dividend Comparison

PULS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.57%, more than COST's 0.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
COST Costco Wholesale Corporation	0.55%	0.59%	0.49%	2.87%	0.76%	0.54%	3.38%	0.86%	1.08%	4.81%	1.09%	4.06%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	4.57%	4.78%	5.62%	5.48%	2.30%	1.19%	1.85%	2.69%	1.87%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PULS and COST in my portfolio?

PULS and COST have a correlation of 0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PULS or COST?

COST has higher volatility (7.44%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PULS dropped -5.85% vs COST's -53.39%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.41 vs -0.08), 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.