PDI, PTY, and PCN are established PIMCO taxable closed-end funds used by income-focused investors. In the August 2026 Dividend Decoder snapshot, PDI offered the highest trailing yield and strongest Total Return CAGR of the three—but it also carried the widest negative Coverage Gap and remained at ELEVATED Payout Support Risk.
The direct answer is that PDI's 17.46% Yield TTM came with a larger separation between income and measured economic return. PTY yielded 12.13% and PCN 11.55%. All three had negative Price CAGR and LOW Stability, so the lower-yield funds did not provide positive capital growth or a low-volatility alternative in this window.
August 2026 comparison
| Measure | PDI | PTY | PCN |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yield TTM | 17.46% | 12.13% | 11.55% |
| Price CAGR | -5.55% | -5.95% | -5.34% |
| Total Return CAGR | 8.81% | 4.38% | 5.08% |
| Coverage Gap | -8.65 pp | -7.76 pp | -6.47 pp |
| Payout Support Risk | ELEVATED | WATCH | WATCH |
| Stability | LOW | LOW | LOW |
| Max Drawdown | -12.00% | -11.91% | -16.85% |
| Standard deviation | 13.14% | 10.91% | 14.54% |
| Beta | 0.45 | 0.51 | 0.70 |
The comparison uses one aligned three-year window from August 31, 2023 through August 31, 2026. It evaluates market-price experience under the same CashStreams framework. A closed-end fund can trade above or below its net asset value, so these figures should not be read as an analysis of NAV performance, portfolio income, or premium/discount behavior.
Why compare these three funds?
They share an issuer, taxable income orientation, exchange-traded closed-end structure, and monthly distribution pattern, making them relevant peers for an investor choosing among PIMCO income funds. PIMCO's closed-end fund resources explain that a closed-end fund issues a fixed number of common shares that generally trade on an exchange. PIMCO separately identifies the funds as Dynamic Income Fund, Corporate & Income Opportunity Fund, and Corporate & Income Strategy Fund in its closed-end fund materials.
The shared sponsor does not make the portfolios identical. Mandates, holdings, financing, derivatives, market prices relative to NAV, and distribution sources can differ. The frozen Dividend Decoder evidence is therefore used to compare observed outcomes, not to infer that one fund's accounting or portfolio mechanics apply to the others.
How much income, and how variable?
PDI's 17.46% Yield TTM exceeded PTY's by 5.33 percentage points and PCN's by 5.91 points. PTY's 12.13% and PCN's 11.55% were closer, separated by 0.58 points.
The latest distributions recorded through August month-end were unchanged from their respective prior payments: PDI paid $0.221 per share, PTY $0.119, and PCN $0.113, each with an August 13 ex-date. The unchanged observations add context, but they do not establish future payout stability. Per-share payments also cannot be compared directly across funds with different share prices.
Yield TTM summarizes the past 12 months relative to price under the CashStreams method. It is not the same as a sponsor's distribution rate or SEC yield, and it does not identify how a closed-end fund financed or classified distributions.
What happened to invested capital?
All three funds had negative Price CAGR: -5.55% for PDI, -5.95% for PTY, and -5.34% for PCN. PCN was least negative, but it also had the deepest drawdown, illustrating that endpoint growth and the path between endpoints answer different questions.
Distributions lifted each measured total return above zero. PDI had the strongest Total Return CAGR at 8.81%, followed by PCN at 5.08% and PTY at 4.38%. PDI's higher income was therefore accompanied by a higher overall return than its peers, even though its total return remained well below its trailing yield.
From July to August, PTY had the only material rolling-window improvement: Price CAGR increased 1.62 points and Total Return CAGR 1.86 points. PDI changed by only +0.13 and +0.24 points, while PCN changed by +0.04 and +0.09 points. These are differences between rolling three-year CAGRs, not one-month returns and not signals that the next month must continue in the same direction.
How does income compare with economic return?
All three Coverage Gaps were negative. PDI's was widest at -8.65 points, followed by PTY at -7.76 points and PCN at -6.47 points. This means none of the measured Total Return CAGRs matched the corresponding trailing yield during the window.
Coverage Gap is a diagnostic subtraction—Total Return CAGR minus Yield TTM. It is not accounting distribution coverage. It does not establish net investment income, undistributed net investment income, realized gains, return of capital, or NAV erosion, and it does not forecast a distribution change. Those questions require fund financial statements, Section 19 notices where applicable, and NAV-specific analysis.
PDI remained ELEVATED Payout Support Risk from July to August, and its gap changed by -0.65 points. PTY improved from ELEVATED to WATCH as its gap narrowed by 1.92 points. PCN remained WATCH, with only a 0.19-point change. PTY's transition is notable, but WATCH still calls for monitoring and one month does not establish a durable improvement.
PDI's higher Total Return CAGR therefore does not cancel its support diagnostic. Both statements can be true: it produced the strongest full return of the group while its much higher trailing yield left the largest shortfall versus that return.
What volatility and drawdown accompanied the result?
All three funds were LOW Stability. PTY had the lowest standard deviation at 10.91% and a -11.91% Max Drawdown. PDI recorded 13.14% standard deviation and -12.00% drawdown—nearly the same loss depth as PTY with more measured variability. PCN had both the highest standard deviation, 14.54%, and deepest drawdown, -16.85%.
Beta told a different part of the story: 0.45 for PDI, 0.51 for PTY, and 0.70 for PCN. PDI's lower beta did not prevent a double-digit drawdown or a LOW Stability classification. Beta is not a complete measure of loss risk, particularly for closed-end funds whose market prices can also reflect shifts in premium or discount.
The risk evidence does not identify a calm fund. PTY had the lowest volatility and shallowest drawdown by a narrow margin over PDI, while PCN's lower yield and narrower Coverage Gap came with the deepest decline.
How I would frame the tradeoff
PDI's appeal in this snapshot is clear: substantially higher trailing income and higher Total Return CAGR. The accompanying cautions are equally clear: negative Price CAGR, the widest negative Coverage Gap, ELEVATED Payout Support Risk, and LOW Stability.
PTY offered a lower yield, the lowest volatility, and an improving payout-support label, but also the weakest Total Return CAGR and most-negative Price CAGR. PCN had the narrowest Coverage Gap and least-negative Price CAGR, yet its drawdown and volatility were the highest. Each apparent advantage arrived with a different weakness.
That makes the four-factor framework more useful than a yield ranking. Compare the income actually observed, the capital path, how total return related to yield, and the volatility and drawdown required to get there. Then separately inspect current NAV premiums or discounts, portfolio reports, leverage, fees, and distribution notices before drawing a fund-specific conclusion.
The Dividend Decoder can track these market-price measures over later monthly snapshots. It cannot replace the fund-level accounting documents needed to judge NII, UNII, distribution composition, or NAV trends.
Note: Metrics are exported from Dividend Decoder as a partial snapshot; not investment advice.