PULS vs PYLD: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
PULS and PYLD are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. PULS is PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF, while PYLD is PIMCO Multisector Bond Active Exchange-Traded Fund. PYLD is broader by holdings count, with 2,122 positions versus 1,033 for PULS. PYLD is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
What is the main difference between PULS and PYLD?
PYLD puts 100% of its assets in Energy, while PULS spreads across 3 sectors with none above 37%.
| Metric | PULS | PYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.74% |
| Holdings | 1,033 | 2,122 |
| Top-10 concentration | 6.9% | 21.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.38% | 6.59% |
| Average volume | 2,924,131 | 4,795,977 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -0.3% | -5.3% |
| YTD return | 0% | -4.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 1.3% | 4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -0.7% | -6.7% |
| Beta | 0.00 | 0.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.33 | -2.29 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.59 | -3.00 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 55/100 | 55/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 58/100 | 44/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 67/100 | 88/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF vs PIMCO Multisector Bond Active Exchange-Traded Fund
PULS and PYLD are effectively level
PULS and PYLD are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF
PIMCO Multisector Bond Active Exchange-Traded Fund
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate PULS and PYLD as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF and PIMCO Multisector Bond Active Exchange-Traded Fund across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
PULS vs PYLD: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | PULS | PYLD | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.74% | PULS |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,033 | 2,122 | PYLD |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 6.9% | 21.6% | PULS |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.38% | 6.59% | PYLD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -0.7% | -6.7% | PULS |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 1.3% | 4% | PULS |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare PULS and PYLD against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience67 vs 88PYLD +21
- Momentum58 vs 44PULS +14
- Quality65 vs 66Even
- Value36 vs 36Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +22
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
PYLD's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PULS and PYLD both carry a full feed there.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | PULS | PYLD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.74% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,033 | 2,122 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,924,131 | 4,795,977 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 1.3% | 4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -0.7% | -6.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.33 | -2.29 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.00 | 0.16 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
PULS and PYLD share 1.54% of their weighted exposure across 45 common holdings.
696 holdings are unique to PULS, and 2,046 holdings are unique to PYLD. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
PYLD is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 21.6% of the fund, against 6.88% for PULS (2,122 holdings vs 1,033). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | PULS | PYLD | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARES LXV CLO LTD | 0.3% | 0.23% | 0.23% |
| OCTAGON 64 LTD | 0.25% | 0.18% | 0.18% |
| AFFIRM MASTER TRUST AFRMT 2025 1A A 144A 4.99% 02/15/2033 | 0.13% | 0.14% | 0.13% |
| REGATTA VII FUNDING LTD | 0.25% | 0.09% | 0.09% |
| JP MORGAN MORTGAGE TRUST JPMMT 2026 ACES1 A1F 144A 4.84% 04/25/2 | 0.09% | 0.12% | 0.09% |
| BMO 2024-5C5 MORTGAGE TRUST | 0.19% | 0.09% | 0.09% |
| MAGNETITE CLO LTD MAGNE 2022 32A AR 144A 4.90% 10/15/2037 | 0.08% | 0.09% | 0.08% |
| OCTAGON INVESTMENT PARTNERS 41 LTD | 0.16% | 0.07% | 0.07% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What PULS adds that PYLD doesn’t
| Holding | PULS | PYLD |
|---|---|---|
| PAAAPGIM AAA CLO ETF | 1.93% | Not held |
| HEALTHPEAK OP LLC 0.0 23SEP26 144A | 0.68% | Not held |
| INTESA SANPAOLO SPA N Y BRH 01JUL27 | 0.65% | Not held |
| ALIMENTATION COUCH 0.0 06OCT26 144A | 0.63% | Not held |
| ALEXANDRIA REAL ES 0.0 18SEP26 144A | 0.59% | Not held |
| ALEXANDRIA REAL ES 0.0 14SEP26 144A | 0.51% | Not held |
What PYLD adds that PULS doesn’t
| Holding | PYLD | PULS |
|---|---|---|
| FNMA TBA 30 YR 5 SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE 5.00% 10/13/2056 | 4.1% | Not held |
| FNMA TBA 30 YR 6 SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE 6.00% 11/12/2056 | 4.01% | Not held |
| CITIGROUP REPO REPO 5807 3.63% 09/14/2026 | 3.85% | Not held |
| FNMA TBA 30 YR 4 SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE 4.00% 10/13/2056 | 3.06% | Not held |
| FNMA POOL MA6052 FN 05/56 FIXED 4.5 4.50% 05/01/2056 | 1.91% | Not held |
| REPO BANK AMERICA REPO 3.64% 09/14/2026 | 1.83% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 55 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 36 |
| Technicals | PULS | Price vs 50-day 0% vs -1.2%; vs 200-day -0.1% vs -3.3% |
| Risk Resilience | PYLD | Risk Resilience 67 vs 88 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PULS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 55 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- PYLD +5
- 48 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- PULS +4
- 54 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- PYLD +1
- 52 vs 53
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Sep 30 when PYLD moved ahead of PULS.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only PULS
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.5%)
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week Low Proximity, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price 0%, AIQ +6 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.12%, AIQ +1 points).
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
PULS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | PULS | PYLD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | -1.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.2% | -2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.2% | -4.2% |
| Year to date | 0% | -4.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.3% | -5.3% |
Technicals
PULS has the stronger structure| Metric | PULS | PYLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 86.7 | 53.1 |
| ADX (14) | 14.5 | 31.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0% | -1.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.1% | -3.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 1.2% | 4.8% |
Risk
PYLD is the more resilient| Metric | PULS | PYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0 | 0.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.33 | -2.29 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.59 | -3 |
| Max drawdown | -0.7% | -6.7% |
| Current drawdown | -0.5% | -5.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 1.3% | 4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.1% | -0.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between PULS and PYLD?
PYLD puts 100% of its assets in Energy, while PULS spreads across 3 sectors with none above 37%.
How much do PULS and PYLD overlap?
PULS and PYLD share 1.54% of their weighted exposure across 45 common holdings. 696 holdings are unique to PULS, and 2,046 holdings are unique to PYLD. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, PULS or PYLD?
PYLD holds more positions: 2,122 versus 1,033 for PULS.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
PULS has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.74% for PYLD.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
PYLD, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 6.59% against 4.38% for PULS.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
PYLD has been more volatile over the past year, at 4% annualized against 1.3% for PULS.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
PULS fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -0.7% against -6.7% for PYLD.
Compare PULS and PYLD with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.