PULS vs. LIF
PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) is Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM, while LIF (Life360, Inc.) is a stock. Over the past year, PULS returned 4.67% vs -25.93% for LIF. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
PULS vs. LIF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PULS achieves a 1.88% return, which is significantly higher than LIF's -29.45% return.
PULS
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.38%
- YTD
- 1.88%
- 6M
- 2.10%
- 1Y
- 4.67%
- 3Y*
- 5.59%
- 5Y*
- 4.14%
- 10Y*
- —
LIF
- 1D
- -0.07%
- 1M
- 17.44%
- YTD
- -29.45%
- 6M
- -33.03%
- 1Y
- -25.93%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PULS vs. LIF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF | 1.88% | 4.97% | 3.30% |
LIF Life360, Inc. | -29.45% | 55.42% | 58.73% |
Correlation
The correlation between PULS and LIF is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 6, 2024 | 0.18 |
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. LIF — Risk / Return Rank
PULS
LIF
PULS vs. LIF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) and Life360, Inc. (LIF). 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 | LIF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +11.83 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +33.14 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 7.59 | 0.97 | +6.62 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 52.47 | -0.43 | +52.90 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 317.38 | -0.70 | +318.08 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PULS vs. LIF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PULS drawdown since its inception was -5.85%, smaller than the maximum LIF drawdown of -65.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PULS and LIF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PULS | LIF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -5.85% | -65.64% | +59.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.09% | -65.64% | +65.55% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -0.34% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -0.79% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -59.19% | +59.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.09% | -21.35% | +21.26% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.01% | 40.82% | -40.81% |
Volatility
PULS vs. LIF - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) is 0.11%, while Life360, Inc. (LIF) has a volatility of 16.67%. This indicates that PULS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LIF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PULS | LIF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.11% | 16.67% | -16.56% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.30% | 52.85% | -52.55% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.41% | 67.08% | -66.67% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 0.70% | 62.97% | -62.27% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 1.33% | 62.97% | -61.64% |
Dividends
PULS vs. LIF - Dividend Comparison
PULS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.57%, while LIF has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LIF Life360, Inc. | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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
PULS and LIF have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LIF has higher volatility (16.67%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PULS dropped -5.85% vs LIF's -65.64%.
PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.41 vs -0.43), 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 LIF
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