PULS vs. XHLF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) and XHLF (BondBloxx Bloomberg Six Month Target Duration US Treasury ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PULS is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM, while XHLF is a Government Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Treasury 6 Month Duration Index. PULS is actively managed, while XHLF is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PULS returned 5.61%/yr vs 4.62%/yr for XHLF. At a 0.26 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PULS charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for XHLF.

Performance

PULS vs. XHLF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) and BondBloxx Bloomberg Six Month Target Duration US Treasury ETF (XHLF). 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 higher than XHLF's 1.39% return.

PULS

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

XHLF

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 1.39%
• 6M: 1.71%
• 1Y: 3.92%
• 3Y*: 4.62%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PULS vs. XHLF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	1.73%	4.97%	6.12%	6.26%	1.20%
XHLF BondBloxx Bloomberg Six Month Target Duration US Treasury ETF	1.39%	4.21%	5.04%	4.90%	0.96%

Correlation

The correlation between PULS and XHLF is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.32
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.28
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2022	0.26

Return for Risk

PULS vs. XHLF — 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

XHLF

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

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. XHLF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) and BondBloxx Bloomberg Six Month Target Duration US Treasury ETF (XHLF). 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	XHLF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	11.41	12.43	-1.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	32.91	45.85	-12.93
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	7.59	11.75	-4.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	52.47	98.81	-46.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	318.56	670.31	-351.75
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. XHLF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PULS Sharpe Ratio is 11.41, which is comparable to the XHLF Sharpe Ratio of 12.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PULS and XHLF, 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	XHLF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.41	12.43	-1.02
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	10.75	-8.24

Drawdowns

PULS vs. XHLF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PULS drawdown since its inception was -5.85%, which is greater than XHLF's maximum drawdown of -0.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PULS and XHLF.

Drawdown Indicators

	PULS	XHLF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.85%	-0.11%	-5.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.09%	-0.04%	-0.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.34%	-0.06%	-0.28%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-0.79%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.09%	-0.00%	-0.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.01%	0.01%	0.00%

Volatility

PULS vs. XHLF - Volatility Comparison

PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) has a higher volatility of 0.11% compared to BondBloxx Bloomberg Six Month Target Duration US Treasury ETF (XHLF) at 0.08%. This indicates that PULS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XHLF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PULS	XHLF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.11%	0.08%	+0.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.30%	0.22%	+0.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41%	0.32%	+0.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.70%	0.42%	+0.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.33%	0.42%	+0.91%

PULS vs. XHLF - Expense Ratio Comparison

PULS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than XHLF's 0.03% 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. XHLF - Dividend Comparison

PULS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.58%, more than XHLF's 3.85% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF	4.58%	4.78%	5.62%	5.48%	2.30%	1.19%	1.85%	2.69%	1.87%
XHLF BondBloxx Bloomberg Six Month Target Duration US Treasury ETF	3.85%	3.98%	4.96%	4.50%	0.86%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PULS and XHLF in my portfolio?

PULS and XHLF have a correlation of 0.32, 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 XHLF?

PULS has higher volatility (0.11%) compared to XHLF (0.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PULS dropped -5.85% vs XHLF's -0.11%.

Which ETF is better, PULS or XHLF?

On 3-year performance, PULS leads with 5.61% vs 4.62% for XHLF. On fees, XHLF is cheaper at 0.03% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PULS or XHLF?

Over the 3-year period, PULS has performed better with a 5.61% return vs 4.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PULS or XHLF?

XHLF is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for PULS.

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

PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.58%, compared with 3.85% for XHLF.

What is the main difference between PULS and XHLF?

PULS is categorized as Ultrashort Bond, while XHLF is Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: PGIM and BondBloxx. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for PULS and 0.03% for XHLF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XHLF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (12.43 vs 11.41), 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.