RWK vs. PULS
RWK (Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF) and PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RWK is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Revenue-Weighted Index, while PULS is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM. RWK is passively managed, while PULS is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, RWK returned 11.10%/yr vs 4.14%/yr for PULS. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RWK charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PULS.
Performance
RWK vs. PULS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RWK achieves a 16.00% return, which is significantly higher than PULS's 1.88% return.
RWK
- 1D
- 0.81%
- 1M
- 7.49%
- YTD
- 16.00%
- 6M
- 13.49%
- 1Y
- 31.27%
- 3Y*
- 17.33%
- 5Y*
- 11.10%
- 10Y*
- 13.21%
PULS
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.38%
- YTD
- 1.88%
- 6M
- 2.10%
- 1Y
- 4.67%
- 3Y*
- 5.59%
- 5Y*
- 4.14%
- 10Y*
- —
RWK vs. PULS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RWK Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF | 16.00% | 10.27% | 11.94% | 23.76% | -8.19% | 34.31% | 11.06% | 28.20% | -11.11% |
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF | 1.88% | 4.97% | 6.12% | 6.26% | 1.52% | 0.48% | 1.47% | 2.97% | 1.71% |
Correlation
The correlation between RWK and PULS is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.14 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.10 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 10, 2018 | 0.08 |
The correlation between RWK and PULS shifts across timeframes, from 0.08 (all time) to 0.27 (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
RWK vs. PULS — Risk / Return Rank
RWK
PULS
RWK vs. PULS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF (RWK) and PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS). 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.
| RWK | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -9.65 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -30.29 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 7.59 | -6.29 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.66 | 52.47 | -49.80 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.56 | 317.38 | -308.82 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
RWK vs. PULS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RWK drawdown since its inception was -56.49%, which is greater than PULS's maximum drawdown of -5.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWK and PULS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RWK | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -56.49% | -5.85% | -50.64% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.14% | -0.09% | -11.05% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.58% | -0.34% | -24.24% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.58% | -0.79% | -23.79% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -46.20% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.54% | -0.09% | -7.45% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.46% | 0.01% | +3.45% |
Volatility
RWK vs. PULS - Volatility Comparison
Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF (RWK) has a higher volatility of 4.89% compared to PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) at 0.11%. This indicates that RWK's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PULS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RWK | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.89% | 0.11% | +4.78% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.07% | 0.30% | +11.77% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.90% | 0.41% | +16.49% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.16% | 0.70% | +20.46% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.96% | 1.33% | +21.63% |
RWK vs. PULS - Expense Ratio Comparison
RWK has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than PULS's 0.15% expense ratio.
Dividends
RWK vs. PULS - Dividend Comparison
RWK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.10%, less than PULS's 4.57% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
RWK Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF | 1.10% | 1.25% | 1.11% | 1.05% | 1.18% | 0.85% | 0.96% | 1.09% | 1.22% | 0.99% | 1.30% | 0.92% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RWK and PULS have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
RWK has higher volatility (4.89%) compared to PULS (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWK dropped -56.49% vs PULS's -5.85%.
On 5-year performance, RWK leads with 11.10% vs 4.14% 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.
Over the 5-year period, RWK has performed better with a 11.10% return vs 4.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PULS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for RWK.
PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.57%, compared with 1.10% for RWK.
RWK is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while PULS is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RWK and 0.15% for PULS.
PULS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.41 vs 1.76), 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 RWK and PULS
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