PGIM Jennison U.S. Core Equity ETF (PJUS) holdings & weights
Per-holding contribution · concentration · sector skew — a deep read
Fund overview
This is a US-listed ETF from PGIM. Key facts — expense ratio 0.19%; net assets about $7M; inception May 20, 2026.
Fund details
Fund overview
This is a US-listed ETF from PGIM. Key facts — expense ratio 0.19%; net assets about $7M; inception May 20, 2026.
25 identified stocks · net exposure / NAV 62.06%. Display weights are normalized to 100%; calculations retain original exposures without an additional leverage multiplier. Cash and unallocated contracts are excluded from stock attribution.
Weight and calculation basis
25 identified stocks · net exposure / NAV 62.06%. Display weights are normalized to 100%; calculations retain original exposures without an additional leverage multiplier. Cash and unallocated contracts are excluded from stock attribution.
We have this ETF's holdings, but the prices for those particular listings are outside our quote coverage (currently Korea- and US-listed securities). So today's contribution and return are not computed — showing 0% would claim it did not move, which is a different statement. The holdings and weights below follow the calculation basis above.
Today's summary
Its top 10 holdings make up about 64.9% of the fund. The concentration index (HHI) is 634 — Low — evenly diversified, and the largest sector is Information Technology (44%). The higher the concentration, the more one stock or sector drives the whole ETF's return.
Structural health
A five-axis read on how this fund is built. It is not a return forecast or a recommendation, and a low score does not mean a bad fund — leveraged products score low by design. Each axis shows the figure behind it.
Concentration is below 1,500 (634), so no single holding dominates.
Information Technology is 44%, a clear tilt. That industry's swings will drive the fund.
0.19% a year is typical. Held ten years, roughly 1.9% goes to fees.
Net assets of $7M are small. Thin funds trade at wider spreads, and very small ones get closed or merged.
A plain 1x physical fund holding the shares themselves — no structural drift from how long you hold it.
Concentration and diversification
Structural health
A five-axis read on how this fund is built. It is not a return forecast or a recommendation, and a low score does not mean a bad fund — leveraged products score low by design. Each axis shows the figure behind it.
Concentration is below 1,500 (634), so no single holding dominates.
Information Technology is 44%, a clear tilt. That industry's swings will drive the fund.
0.19% a year is typical. Held ten years, roughly 1.9% goes to fees.
Net assets of $7M are small. Thin funds trade at wider spreads, and very small ones get closed or merged.
A plain 1x physical fund holding the shares themselves — no structural drift from how long you hold it.
Top 20 holdings
Weights are normalized to 100% of absolute exposures across analysed positions, including positions outside this top list. Cash, collateral and unverified assets are excluded. Contributions retain original signed NAV exposures; leverage is not applied twice.
Normalized to 100% of analysed positions
Weights are normalized to 100% of absolute exposures across analysed positions, including positions outside this top list. Cash, collateral and unverified assets are excluded. Contributions retain original signed NAV exposures; leverage is not applied twice.
| # | Holding | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | NVIDIANVDA | 11.33% |
| 2 | AppleAAPL | 11.30% |
| 3 | AlphabetGOOGL | 11.10% |
| 4 | MicrosoftMSFT | 8.91% |
| 5 | Amazon.comAMZN | 6.32% |
| 6 | BroadcomAVGO | 3.48% |
| 7 | Micron TechnologyMU | 3.30% |
| 8 | Eli Lilly andLLY | 3.16% |
| 9 | Advanced Micro DevicesAMD | 3.01% |
| 10 | Bank of AmericaBAC | 2.98% |
| 11 | JPMorgan ChaseJPM | 2.87% |
| 12 | Union PacificUNP | 2.82% |
| 13 | Meta PlatformsMETA | 2.77% |
| 14 | MetLifeMET | 2.68% |
| 15 | Cisco SystemsCSCO | 2.61% |
| 16 | ShellSHEL | 2.59% |
| 17 | UnitedHealthUNH | 2.56% |
| 18 | RTXRTX | 2.40% |
| 19 | NetflixNFLX | 2.10% |
| 20 | Parker-HannifinPH | 2.08% |
Holdings below 0.5% or outside the top list are folded into “Others” and omitted above.
Where the weight sits — sector mix
Listed equity weights summed by sector and normalized to 100%. Each band is one sector's share.
Industry breakdown
HHI sums the squared weights. The more it leans on a few names, the higher it goes — and the more the whole ETF moves with them.
How concentrated is it
Concentration (HHI) is low at 634, with the top 10 holdings at just 64.9% of equity weight. No single name can dominate the fund.
Good for damping single-stock risk — and equally, a big winner inside gets diluted.
HHI squares each weight and sums them: 10,000 means one stock is everything, and the more evenly spread the holdings, the closer it falls to zero.
Where the sector weight sits
Sector weights run Information Technology(44%) · Communication Services(16%) · Financials(14%). At 44%, the leading sector is a clear tilt.
Expect it to ride that industry's cycle — ahead of the index in good stretches, behind in bad ones.
Weights above sum the individually listed equities and normalize that equity total to 100%.
How much it overlaps others
It shares 67% of its holdings with RAUS (15 names in common) — close to half the same companies.
Own both and the diversification is thinner than it looks.
What it is made of
The fund holds 99 positions in total; this page lists the largest 25 and folds the rest into "Others".
Equities are 62.1% of the fund, the rest swaps and cash — index exposure built synthetically rather than by owning the shares, which adds counterparty risk.
The expense ratio is 0.19% a year. Funds tracking the same index tend to perform alike, which makes the fee one of the few things that reliably separates them over time.
This page is not investment advice. Investment decisions and responsibility are your own.
PJUS comments
Leave a one-line take on PGIM Jennison U.S. Core Equity ETF. No account — just a nickname and a code to delete it later.
Loading…
Similar ETFs
Picked by how much their actual holdings overlap. The higher the overlap, the less diversification you get from owning both.