BAMA vs. BAMB

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

BAMA (Brookstone Active ETF) and BAMB (Brookstone Intermediate Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BAMA is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Brookstone, while BAMB is a Intermediate Core Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BAMA returned 20.01% vs 1.89% for BAMB. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BAMA charges 1.15%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMB.

Performance

BAMA vs. BAMB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brookstone Active ETF (BAMA) and Brookstone Intermediate Bond ETF (BAMB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BAMA achieves a 8.30% return, which is significantly higher than BAMB's -1.02% return.

BAMA

• 1D: -0.40%
• 1M: 1.09%
• YTD: 8.30%
• 6M: 8.31%
• 1Y: 20.01%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMB

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 0.20%
• YTD: -1.02%
• 6M: -0.99%
• 1Y: 1.89%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BAMA vs. BAMB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BAMA Brookstone Active ETF	8.30%	12.61%	14.99%	8.02%
BAMB Brookstone Intermediate Bond ETF	-1.02%	6.15%	3.01%	2.94%

Correlation

The correlation between BAMA and BAMB is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2023	0.24

Return for Risk

BAMA vs. BAMB — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BAMA

BAMA Risk / Return Rank: 64
BAMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
BAMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
BAMA Omega Ratio Rank: 67
BAMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
BAMA Martin Ratio Rank: 67

BAMB

BAMB Risk / Return Rank: 15
BAMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
BAMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
BAMB Omega Ratio Rank: 14
BAMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
BAMB Martin Ratio Rank: 15

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BAMA vs. BAMB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Active ETF (BAMA) and Brookstone Intermediate Bond ETF (BAMB). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BAMA	BAMB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	0.49	+1.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.90	0.75	+2.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.09	+0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.73	0.57	+2.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.03	1.49	+10.54

BAMA vs. BAMB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is higher than the BAMB Sharpe Ratio of 0.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAMA and BAMB, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BAMA vs. BAMB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAMA drawdown since its inception was -12.27%, which is greater than BAMB's maximum drawdown of -4.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMA and BAMB.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAMA	BAMB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.27%	-4.48%	-7.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.35%	-3.37%	-3.98%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.05%	-2.67%	+1.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.27%	-1.03%	-0.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.67%	1.27%	+0.40%

Volatility

BAMA vs. BAMB - Volatility Comparison

Brookstone Active ETF (BAMA) has a higher volatility of 4.27% compared to Brookstone Intermediate Bond ETF (BAMB) at 1.13%. This indicates that BAMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BAMB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BAMA	BAMB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.27%	1.13%	+3.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.56%	2.85%	+5.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.89%	3.86%	+6.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.40%	4.07%	+6.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.40%	4.07%	+6.33%

BAMA vs. BAMB - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAMA has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than BAMB's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

BAMA vs. BAMB - Dividend Comparison

BAMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%, less than BAMB's 2.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMA Brookstone Active ETF	1.31%	1.54%	1.49%	0.45%
BAMB Brookstone Intermediate Bond ETF	2.95%	2.85%	2.90%	0.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BAMA and BAMB in my portfolio?

BAMA and BAMB have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BAMA or BAMB?

BAMA has higher volatility (4.27%) compared to BAMB (1.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMA dropped -12.27% vs BAMB's -4.48%.

Which ETF is better, BAMA or BAMB?

On 1-year performance, BAMA leads with 20.01% vs 1.89% for BAMB. On fees, BAMB is cheaper at 1.09% per year. On volatility, BAMB has been the lower-risk option at 1.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAMA or BAMB?

Over the 1-year period, BAMA has performed better with a 20.01% return vs 1.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BAMA or BAMB?

BAMB is cheaper with a 1.09% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for BAMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BAMA or BAMB?

BAMB has the higher dividend yield at 2.95%, compared with 1.31% for BAMA.

What is the main difference between BAMA and BAMB?

BAMA is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while BAMB is Intermediate Core Bond. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for BAMA and 1.09% for BAMB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs 0.49), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.