PMJA vs QBSF
PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - January vs AllianzIM US Equity Buffer15 ETF
Which is better, PMJA or QBSF?
QBSF has been ahead.
PMJA has a lower expense ratio. QBSF led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94.
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 | PMJA | QBSF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50%Best | 0.64% |
| AUM | $6M | $63M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 14 | 15 |
| YTD Return | +4.40% | +5.26%Best |
| 1Y Return | +6.21% | +7.80%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 1.9%Best | 2.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -1.4%Best | -1.6% |
| $10,000 over 1.3 years | $10,874 | $11,043Best |
| Fund Family | PGIM Investments | AllianzIM |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Option Writing | Option Writing |
| Inception | Dec 31, 2024 | Jun 30, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 1, 2025 to Oct 13, 2026 (1.3 years).
PMJA vs QBSF 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 1.3 years both funds cover.
PMJA vs QBSF Performance
PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - January (PMJA) is an ETF from PGIM Investments and AllianzIM US Equity Buffer15 ETF (QBSF) is an ETF from AllianzIM. Over the past year PMJA returned +6.21% while QBSF returned +7.80%. Year to date, PMJA is up 4.40% versus a gain of 5.26% for QBSF.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QBSF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 2.1% compared with 1.9% for PMJA. 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 -1.4% for PMJA and -1.6% for QBSF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.94. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
PMJA charges 0.50% per year while QBSF charges 0.64%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $64 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, PMJA currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for QBSF.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of PMJA and QBSF 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, PMJA or QBSF?
PMJA has an expense ratio of 0.50% while QBSF charges 0.64%. PMJA is the cheaper option, by $14 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, PMJA or QBSF?
Over the past year PMJA returned +6.21% vs +7.80% for QBSF, so QBSF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), PMJA annualized +6.66% vs +7.93% for QBSF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, PMJA or QBSF?
QBSF has been the more volatile fund at 2.1% annualized versus 1.9% for PMJA. Worst drawdown: PMJA -1.4% vs QBSF -1.6%.
Should I hold both PMJA and QBSF?
PMJA and QBSF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, PMJA or QBSF?
PMJA yields 0.00% while QBSF yields 0.00%, so QBSF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QBSF better than PMJA?
PMJA has a lower expense ratio. QBSF led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.