RWL vs. PMFB

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RWL (Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF) and PMFB (PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - February) are both exchange-traded funds - RWL is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index, while PMFB is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by PGIM. RWL is passively managed, while PMFB is actively managed. Over the past year, RWL returned 26.17% vs 7.42% for PMFB. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RWL charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PMFB.

Performance

RWL vs. PMFB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) and PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - February (PMFB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RWL achieves a 11.76% return, which is significantly higher than PMFB's 2.39% return.

RWL

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 0.91%
• YTD: 11.76%
• 6M: 11.32%
• 1Y: 26.17%
• 3Y*: 19.58%
• 5Y*: 13.37%
• 10Y*: 14.32%

PMFB

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 0.06%
• YTD: 2.39%
• 6M: 2.46%
• 1Y: 7.42%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RWL vs. PMFB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RWL Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF	11.76%	13.01%
PMFB PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - February	2.39%	6.39%

Correlation

The correlation between RWL and PMFB is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2025	0.74

The correlation between RWL and PMFB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RWL vs. PMFB — Risk / Return Rank

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

RWL

RWL Risk / Return Rank: 83
RWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
RWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
RWL Omega Ratio Rank: 81
RWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
RWL Martin Ratio Rank: 84

PMFB

PMFB Risk / Return Rank: 95
PMFB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
PMFB Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
PMFB Omega Ratio Rank: 96
PMFB Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
PMFB Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

RWL vs. PMFB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) and PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - February (PMFB). 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.

	RWL	PMFB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.58	3.52	-0.94
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.58	5.52	-1.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.78	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.96	5.56	-1.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.57	28.39	-11.82

RWL vs. PMFB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWL Sharpe Ratio is 2.58, which is comparable to the PMFB Sharpe Ratio of 3.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWL and PMFB, 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

RWL vs. PMFB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWL drawdown since its inception was -54.83%, which is greater than PMFB's maximum drawdown of -2.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWL and PMFB.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWL	PMFB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-54.83%	-2.94%	-51.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.64%	-1.34%	-5.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.39%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.49%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.04%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.53%	-0.27%	-1.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.43%	-0.36%	-6.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.58%	0.26%	+1.32%

Volatility

RWL vs. PMFB - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) has a higher volatility of 3.16% compared to PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - February (PMFB) at 0.62%. This indicates that RWL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PMFB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWL	PMFB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.16%	0.62%	+2.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.43%	1.53%	+5.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.20%	2.14%	+8.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.51%	2.76%	+11.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.84%	2.76%	+14.08%

RWL vs. PMFB - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWL has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than PMFB's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWL vs. PMFB - Dividend Comparison

RWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.27%, while PMFB has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
PMFB PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - February	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RWL Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF	1.27%	1.35%	1.43%	1.60%	1.62%	1.35%	1.75%	1.87%	1.99%	1.60%	1.71%	1.97%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RWL and PMFB in my portfolio?

RWL and PMFB have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RWL or PMFB?

RWL has higher volatility (3.16%) compared to PMFB (0.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWL dropped -54.83% vs PMFB's -2.94%.

Which ETF is better, RWL or PMFB?

On 1-year performance, RWL leads with 26.17% vs 7.42% for PMFB. On fees, RWL is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, PMFB has been the lower-risk option at 0.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RWL or PMFB?

Over the 1-year period, RWL has performed better with a 26.17% return vs 7.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWL or PMFB?

RWL is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for PMFB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RWL or PMFB?

RWL has the higher dividend yield at 1.27%, compared with 0.00% for PMFB.

What is the main difference between RWL and PMFB?

RWL is categorized as S&P 500, while PMFB is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RWL and 0.50% for PMFB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PMFB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.52 vs 2.58), 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.