Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
DBMF vs PULS: how they differ
DBMF is an equity index fund and PULS a short-term Treasury fund, and over the year DBMF returned more, +25.4% against +4.2%.
iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF and PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF.
| DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iMGP | PGIM |
| What it is | iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy | PGIM Ultra Short Bond |
| Total return, 1 year | +25.4% | +4.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +7.9 pts | −13.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.85% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | not filed | 553 |
DBMF in plain words
DBMF is an index equity fund tracking the iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +25.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.85% a year.
PULS in plain words
PULS is a cash and treasury bills tracking the PGIM Ultra Short Bond. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +4.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, DBMF or PULS?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DBMF returned +25.4% and PULS returned +4.2%, so DBMF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, DBMF or PULS?
- DBMF charges 0.85% a year and PULS charges 0.15%, so PULS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, DBMF against PULS, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DBMF-PULS Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources