PULS vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PULS is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM, while FBCG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, PULS returned 4.14%/yr vs 14.46%/yr for FBCG. At a 0.09 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PULS charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

PULS vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG). 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 FBCG's 11.31% return.

PULS

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: 1.88%
• 6M: 2.10%
• 1Y: 4.67%
• 3Y*: 5.59%
• 5Y*: 4.14%
• 10Y*: —

FBCG

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: 0.07%
• YTD: 11.31%
• 6M: 12.74%
• 1Y: 34.39%
• 3Y*: 28.04%
• 5Y*: 14.46%
• 10Y*: —

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

PULS vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	1.88%	4.97%	6.12%	6.26%	1.52%	0.48%	1.37%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	11.31%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	21.34%	41.44%

Correlation

The correlation between PULS and FBCG 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	0.10
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2020	0.09

The correlation between PULS and FBCG shifts across timeframes, from 0.09 (5 years) to 0.19 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

PULS vs. FBCG — 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

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 53
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 53
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG). 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	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	11.41	1.66	+9.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	32.91	2.24	+30.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	7.59	1.29	+6.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	52.47	2.12	+50.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	317.38	8.07	+309.31

PULS vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PULS Sharpe Ratio is 11.41, which is higher than the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PULS and FBCG, 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. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PULS drawdown since its inception was -5.85%, smaller than the maximum FBCG drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PULS and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	PULS	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.85%	-43.56%	+37.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.09%	-15.17%	+15.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.34%	-27.89%	+27.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-0.79%	-43.56%	+42.77%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-4.71%	+4.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.09%	-11.45%	+11.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.01%	3.99%	-3.98%

Volatility

PULS vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) is 0.11%, while Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a volatility of 7.21%. This indicates that PULS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FBCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PULS	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.11%	7.21%	-7.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.30%	15.09%	-14.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41%	19.38%	-18.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.70%	25.90%	-25.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.33%	25.77%	-24.44%

PULS vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

PULS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than FBCG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

PULS vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

PULS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.57%, more than FBCG's 0.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	0.04%	0.05%	0.12%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	4.57%	4.78%	5.62%	5.48%	2.30%	1.19%	1.85%	2.69%	1.87%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PULS and FBCG in my portfolio?

PULS and FBCG 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, PULS or FBCG?

FBCG has higher volatility (7.21%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PULS dropped -5.85% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, PULS or FBCG?

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 14.46% vs 4.14% 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, PULS or FBCG?

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 14.46% return vs 4.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PULS or FBCG?

PULS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

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

PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.57%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between PULS and FBCG?

PULS is categorized as Ultrashort Bond, while FBCG is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: PGIM and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for PULS and 0.59% for FBCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.41 vs 1.66), 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.