PBNV vs VXUS
PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF - November vs Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
Which is better, PBNV or VXUS?
Multi Alternative against Large Cap Blend.
VXUS has a lower expense ratio. VXUS led over 1Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | PBNV | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.05%Best |
| AUM | $36M | $158.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 2.51% |
| Holdings | 8 | 8,747 |
| YTD Return | +8.29% | +12.88%Best |
| 1Y Return | +10.38% | +19.97%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +20.14% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +8.87% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 4.8%Best | 11.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -8.4%Best | -13.6% |
| $10,000 over 2.3 years | $12,681 | $14,842Best |
| Fund Family | PGIM Investments | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 22, 2024 | Jan 26, 2011 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: May 22, 2024 to Sep 23, 2026 (2.3 years).
PBNV vs VXUS growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 2.3 years both funds cover.
PBNV vs VXUS Performance
PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF - November (PBNV) is an ETF from PGIM Investments and Vanguard Total International Stock ETF (VXUS) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year PBNV returned +10.38% while VXUS returned +19.97%. Year to date, PBNV is up 8.29% versus a gain of 12.88% for VXUS.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VXUS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 11.4% compared with 4.8% for PBNV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -8.4% for PBNV and -13.6% for VXUS. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.54. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
PBNV charges 0.50% per year while VXUS charges 0.05%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $5 annually, a gap of $45 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, PBNV currently yields 0.00% against 2.51% for VXUS.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of PBNV and VXUS you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, PBNV or VXUS?
PBNV has an expense ratio of 0.50% while VXUS charges 0.05%. VXUS is the cheaper option, by $45 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, PBNV or VXUS?
Over the past year PBNV returned +10.38% vs +19.97% for VXUS, so VXUS leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), PBNV annualized +10.88% vs +18.73% for VXUS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, PBNV or VXUS?
VXUS has been the more volatile fund at 11.4% annualized versus 4.8% for PBNV. Worst drawdown: PBNV -8.4% vs VXUS -13.6%.
Should I hold both PBNV and VXUS?
PBNV and VXUS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.54, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, PBNV or VXUS?
PBNV yields 0.00% while VXUS yields 2.51%, so VXUS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VXUS better than PBNV?
VXUS has a lower expense ratio. VXUS led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.