PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
PULS vs. IEFA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

PULS vs. IEFA

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) and IEFA (iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PULS is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM, while IEFA is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the MSCI EAFE IMI Index (Net). PULS is actively managed, while IEFA is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, PULS returned 4.12%/yr vs 7.82%/yr for IEFA. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PULS charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IEFA.

Performance

PULS vs. IEFA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) and iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PULS achieves a 1.73% return, which is significantly lower than IEFA's 7.49% return.

PULS

1D
0.00%
1M
0.26%
YTD
1.73%
6M
2.05%
1Y
4.65%
3Y*
5.58%
5Y*
4.12%
10Y*
—

IEFA

1D
0.63%
1M
-1.17%
YTD
7.49%
6M
10.04%
1Y
19.61%
3Y*
16.13%
5Y*
7.82%
10Y*
9.37%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

PULS vs. IEFA - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
PULS
PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF		1.73%4.97%6.12%6.26%1.52%0.48%1.47%2.97%1.71%
IEFA
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF		7.49%32.08%3.26%17.95%-15.24%11.63%8.18%22.64%-15.04%

Correlation

The correlation between PULS and IEFA is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.29

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.19

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.16

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2018

0.13

The correlation between PULS and IEFA shifts across timeframes, from 0.13 (all time) to 0.29 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PULS vs. IEFA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
PULS
IEFA

Financial Services

1.5%
22.5%

Basic Materials

-

7.0%

Communication Services

-

4.4%

Consumer Cyclical

-

8.0%

Consumer Defensive

-

6.6%

Energy

-

3.8%

Healthcare

-

9.5%

Industrials

-

20.1%

Real Estate

-

3.0%

Technology

-

10.8%

Utilities

-

3.6%

Financial Services

PULS
1.5%
IEFA
22.5%

Basic Materials

PULS

-

IEFA
7.0%

Communication Services

PULS

-

IEFA
4.4%

Consumer Cyclical

PULS

-

IEFA
8.0%

Consumer Defensive

PULS

-

IEFA
6.6%

Energy

PULS

-

IEFA
3.8%

Healthcare

PULS

-

IEFA
9.5%

Industrials

PULS

-

IEFA
20.1%

Real Estate

PULS

-

IEFA
3.0%

Technology

PULS

-

IEFA
10.8%

Utilities

PULS

-

IEFA
3.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF

iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF

Often compared with PULS:
PULS vs. ICSHPULS vs. PAAAPULS vs. MINTPULS vs. USFRPULS vs. AAAPULS vs. CSHIPULS vs. STOT
Often compared with IEFA:
IEFA vs. VEAIEFA vs. VXUSIEFA vs. EFAIEFA vs. FSPSXIEFA vs. IEMGIEFA vs. XEF.TOIEFA vs. IXUS

Return for Risk

PULS vs. IEFA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
PULS
PULS Risk / Return Rank: 100100
Overall Rank
PULS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100100
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PULS Sortino Ratio Rank: 100100
Sortino Ratio Rank
PULS Omega Ratio Rank: 100100
Omega Ratio Rank
PULS Calmar Ratio Rank: 9999
Calmar Ratio Rank
PULS Martin Ratio Rank: 9999
Martin Ratio Rank
IEFA
IEFA Risk / Return Rank: 4040
Overall Rank
IEFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 4040
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEFA Omega Ratio Rank: 4040
Omega Ratio Rank
IEFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEFA Martin Ratio Rank: 4343
Martin Ratio Rank
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. IEFA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) and iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA). 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.

PULSIEFADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
11.31
1.30

+10.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
32.62
1.88

+30.75

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

7.53

1.24

+6.29

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

52.00

1.71

+50.28

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

314.53

6.52

+308.01

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PULS vs. IEFA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PULS Sharpe Ratio is 11.31, which is higher than the IEFA Sharpe Ratio of 1.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PULS and IEFA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

PULSIEFADifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.31

1.30

+10.01

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

5.92

0.47

+5.44

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.54

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

2.51

0.50

+2.00

Drawdowns

PULS vs. IEFA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PULS drawdown since its inception was -5.85%, smaller than the maximum IEFA drawdown of -34.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PULS and IEFA.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

PULSIEFADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-5.85%

-34.78%

+28.93%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-0.09%

-11.50%

+11.41%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-0.34%

-13.76%

+13.42%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-0.79%

-30.41%

+29.62%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-34.78%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.02%

-2.44%

+2.42%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.09%

-6.69%

+6.60%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.01%

3.02%

-3.01%

Volatility

PULS vs. IEFA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) is 0.11%, while iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA) has a volatility of 4.54%. This indicates that PULS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IEFA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

PULSIEFADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.11%

4.54%

-4.43%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

0.30%

12.74%

-12.44%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.41%

15.22%

-14.81%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

0.70%

16.55%

-15.85%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

1.33%

17.32%

-15.99%

PULS vs. IEFA - Expense Ratio Comparison

PULS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than IEFA's 0.07% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

PULS vs. IEFA - Dividend Comparison

PULS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.58%, more than IEFA's 3.30% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IEFA
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF		3.30%3.55%3.47%3.20%2.70%3.32%1.90%3.18%3.46%2.57%2.96%2.63%
PULS
PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF		4.58%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

PULS and IEFA have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IEFA has higher volatility (4.54%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PULS dropped -5.85% vs IEFA's -34.78%.

On 5-year performance, IEFA leads with 7.82% vs 4.12% for PULS. On fees, IEFA is cheaper at 0.07% 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.

Over the 5-year period, IEFA has performed better with a 7.82% return vs 4.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IEFA is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for PULS.

PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.58%, compared with 3.30% for IEFA.

PULS is categorized as Ultrashort Bond, while IEFA is Foreign Large Cap Equities. They also come from different issuers: PGIM and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for PULS and 0.07% for IEFA.

PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.31 vs 1.30), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for PULS and IEFA

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