PULS vs. ISCB
PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) and ISCB (iShares Morningstar Small-Cap ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PULS is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM, while ISCB is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Morningstar US Small Cap Extended Index. PULS is actively managed, while ISCB is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, PULS returned 4.14%/yr vs 5.77%/yr for ISCB. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PULS charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for ISCB.
Performance
PULS vs. ISCB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PULS achieves a 1.88% return, which is significantly lower than ISCB's 13.51% return.
PULS
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.38%
- YTD
- 1.88%
- 6M
- 2.10%
- 1Y
- 4.67%
- 3Y*
- 5.59%
- 5Y*
- 4.14%
- 10Y*
- —
ISCB
- 1D
- 0.86%
- 1M
- 5.38%
- YTD
- 13.51%
- 6M
- 11.70%
- 1Y
- 32.44%
- 3Y*
- 15.67%
- 5Y*
- 5.77%
- 10Y*
- 9.71%
PULS vs. ISCB - 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% |
ISCB iShares Morningstar Small-Cap ETF | 13.51% | 12.46% | 10.90% | 19.51% | -19.04% | 17.46% | 6.29% | 29.42% | -11.04% |
Correlation
The correlation between PULS and ISCB is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.26 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.14 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.11 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 10, 2018 | 0.08 |
The correlation between PULS and ISCB shifts across timeframes, from 0.08 (all time) to 0.26 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
PULS vs. ISCB — Risk / Return Rank
PULS
ISCB
PULS vs. ISCB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) and iShares Morningstar Small-Cap ETF (ISCB). 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 | ISCB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +9.60 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +30.33 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 7.59 | 1.31 | +6.28 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 52.47 | 3.22 | +49.25 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 317.38 | 11.52 | +305.86 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PULS vs. ISCB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PULS drawdown since its inception was -5.85%, smaller than the maximum ISCB drawdown of -61.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PULS and ISCB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PULS | ISCB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -5.85% | -61.25% | +55.40% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.09% | -9.39% | +9.30% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -0.34% | -26.22% | +25.88% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -0.79% | -29.94% | +29.15% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -44.18% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.09% | -9.79% | +9.70% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.01% | 2.63% | -2.62% |
Volatility
PULS vs. ISCB - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) is 0.11%, while iShares Morningstar Small-Cap ETF (ISCB) has a volatility of 5.06%. This indicates that PULS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ISCB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PULS | ISCB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.11% | 5.06% | -4.95% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.30% | 11.80% | -11.50% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.41% | 16.76% | -16.35% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 0.70% | 21.43% | -20.73% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 1.33% | 22.70% | -21.37% |
PULS vs. ISCB - Expense Ratio Comparison
PULS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than ISCB's 0.04% 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. ISCB - Dividend Comparison
PULS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.57%, more than ISCB's 1.24% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISCB iShares Morningstar Small-Cap ETF | 1.24% | 1.38% | 1.31% | 1.49% | 1.63% | 1.26% | 1.26% | 1.25% | 1.60% | 1.24% | 1.58% | 1.40% |
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
PULS and ISCB have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ISCB has higher volatility (5.06%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PULS dropped -5.85% vs ISCB's -61.25%.
On 5-year performance, ISCB leads with 5.77% vs 4.14% for PULS. On fees, ISCB is cheaper at 0.04% 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, ISCB has performed better with a 5.77% return vs 4.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ISCB is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for PULS.
PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.57%, compared with 1.24% for ISCB.
PULS is categorized as Ultrashort Bond, while ISCB is Small Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: PGIM and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for PULS and 0.04% for ISCB.
PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.41 vs 1.81), 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 PULS and ISCB
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