RB vs. PMAP

Last updated Jun 27, 2026

RB (ProShares Russell 2000 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF) and PMAP (PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds. RB is passively managed, while PMAP is actively managed. Over the past year, RB returned 19.41% vs 6.35% for PMAP. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RB charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PMAP.

Performance

RB vs. PMAP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Russell 2000 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (RB) and PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April (PMAP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RB achieves a 7.87% return, which is significantly higher than PMAP's 3.16% return.

RB

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 0.80%
• YTD: 7.87%
• 6M: 7.69%
• 1Y: 19.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PMAP

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: -0.13%
• YTD: 3.16%
• 6M: 3.16%
• 1Y: 6.35%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RB vs. PMAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RB ProShares Russell 2000 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF	7.87%	10.85%
PMAP PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April	3.16%	3.31%

Correlation

The correlation between RB and PMAP is 0.55, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025	0.56

The correlation between RB and PMAP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RB vs. PMAP — Risk / Return Rank

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

RB

RB Risk / Return Rank: 96
RB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
RB Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
RB Omega Ratio Rank: 95
RB Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
RB Martin Ratio Rank: 96

PMAP

PMAP Risk / Return Rank: 99
PMAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
PMAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
PMAP Omega Ratio Rank: 98
PMAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
PMAP Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

RB vs. PMAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Russell 2000 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (RB) and PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April (PMAP). 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.

	RB	PMAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.97	5.61	-2.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.08	11.04	-5.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.65	2.56	-0.91
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.27	18.54	-9.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	30.83	91.90	-61.06

RB vs. PMAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RB Sharpe Ratio is 2.97, which is lower than the PMAP Sharpe Ratio of 5.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RB and PMAP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

RB vs. PMAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RB drawdown since its inception was -2.09%, which is greater than PMAP's maximum drawdown of -1.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RB and PMAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	RB	PMAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.09%	-1.75%	-0.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.09%	-0.35%	-1.74%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.56%	-0.22%	-0.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.43%	-0.08%	-0.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.63%	0.07%	+0.56%

Volatility

RB vs. PMAP - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Russell 2000 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (RB) has a higher volatility of 2.66% compared to PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April (PMAP) at 0.41%. This indicates that RB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PMAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RB	PMAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.66%	0.41%	+2.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.75%	0.89%	+3.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.52%	1.16%	+5.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.52%	2.30%	+4.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.52%	2.30%	+4.22%

RB vs. PMAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

RB has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than PMAP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

RB vs. PMAP - Dividend Comparison

RB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.27%, while PMAP has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
PMAP PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - April	0.00%	0.00%
RB ProShares Russell 2000 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF	2.27%	1.78%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RB and PMAP in my portfolio?

RB and PMAP have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RB or PMAP?

RB has higher volatility (2.66%) compared to PMAP (0.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RB dropped -2.09% vs PMAP's -1.75%.

Which ETF is better, RB or PMAP?

On 1-year performance, RB leads with 19.41% vs 6.35% for PMAP. On fees, PMAP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PMAP has been the lower-risk option at 0.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RB or PMAP?

Over the 1-year period, RB has performed better with a 19.41% return vs 6.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RB or PMAP?

PMAP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for RB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RB or PMAP?

RB has the higher dividend yield at 2.27%, compared with 0.00% for PMAP.

What is the main difference between RB and PMAP?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for RB and 0.50% for PMAP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PMAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.61 vs 2.97), 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.