PULS vs. PJFG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) and PJFG (PGIM Jennison Focused Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PULS is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM, while PJFG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by PGIM. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, PULS returned 5.61%/yr vs 24.04%/yr for PJFG. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PULS charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for PJFG.

Performance

PULS vs. PJFG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PULS achieves a 1.73% return, which is significantly lower than PJFG's 6.64% return.

PULS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 1.73%
• 6M: 2.09%
• 1Y: 4.70%
• 3Y*: 5.61%
• 5Y*: 4.12%
• 10Y*: —

PJFG

• 1D: -1.40%
• 1M: 6.58%
• YTD: 6.64%
• 6M: 5.59%
• 1Y: 19.79%
• 3Y*: 24.04%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PULS vs. PJFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	1.73%	4.97%	6.12%	6.26%	0.27%
PJFG PGIM Jennison Focused Growth ETF	6.64%	16.94%	31.59%	54.23%	-6.69%

Correlation

The correlation between PULS and PJFG 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	0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2022	0.06

The correlation between PULS and PJFG shifts across timeframes, from 0.06 (all time) to 0.19 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PULS vs. PJFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PULS	PJFG
Financial Services	1.5%	3.4%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	20.2%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.0%
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	6.0%
Industrials	-	4.9%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	48.4%
Utilities	-	1.6%

Return for Risk

PULS vs. PJFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

PULS

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

PJFG

PJFG Risk / Return Rank: 28
PJFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
PJFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
PJFG Omega Ratio Rank: 31
PJFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
PJFG Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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. PJFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) and PGIM Jennison Focused Growth ETF (PJFG). 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.

	PULS	PJFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	11.41	1.18	+10.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	32.91	1.68	+31.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	7.59	1.21	+6.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	52.47	1.05	+51.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	318.56	3.28	+315.27
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. PJFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PULS Sharpe Ratio is 11.41, which is higher than the PJFG Sharpe Ratio of 1.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PULS and PJFG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PULS	PJFG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.41	1.18	+10.23
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	5.92	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.51	1.36	+1.15

Drawdowns

PULS vs. PJFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PULS drawdown since its inception was -5.85%, smaller than the maximum PJFG drawdown of -24.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PULS and PJFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	PULS	PJFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.85%	-24.24%	+18.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.09%	-19.00%	+18.91%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.34%	-24.24%	+23.90%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-0.79%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-2.16%	+2.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.09%	-3.75%	+3.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.01%	6.04%	-6.03%

Volatility

PULS vs. PJFG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) is 0.11%, while PGIM Jennison Focused Growth ETF (PJFG) has a volatility of 4.37%. This indicates that PULS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PJFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PULS	PJFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.11%	4.37%	-4.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.30%	12.90%	-12.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41%	16.83%	-16.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.70%	20.88%	-20.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.33%	20.88%	-19.55%

PULS vs. PJFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

PULS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than PJFG's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

PULS vs. PJFG - Dividend Comparison

PULS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.58%, while PJFG has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
PJFG PGIM Jennison Focused Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	4.58%	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 PJFG in my portfolio?

PULS and PJFG 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 PJFG?

PJFG has higher volatility (4.37%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PULS dropped -5.85% vs PJFG's -24.24%.

Which ETF is better, PULS or PJFG?

On 3-year performance, PJFG leads with 24.04% vs 5.61% 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 PJFG?

Over the 3-year period, PJFG has performed better with a 24.04% return vs 5.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PULS or PJFG?

PULS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for PJFG.

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

PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.58%, compared with 0.00% for PJFG.

What is the main difference between PULS and PJFG?

PULS is categorized as Ultrashort Bond, while PJFG is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for PULS and 0.75% for PJFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.41 vs 1.18), 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.