BAMA vs. RAA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BAMA (Brookstone Active ETF) and RAA (SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BAMA returned 20.45% vs 24.53% for RAA. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BAMA charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for RAA.

Performance

BAMA vs. RAA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brookstone Active ETF (BAMA) and SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BAMA achieves a 8.76% return, which is significantly lower than RAA's 11.05% return.

BAMA

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: 4.12%
• YTD: 8.76%
• 6M: 9.20%
• 1Y: 20.45%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RAA

• 1D: -0.40%
• 1M: 3.67%
• YTD: 11.05%
• 6M: 11.04%
• 1Y: 24.53%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BAMA vs. RAA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BAMA Brookstone Active ETF	8.76%	11.19%
RAA SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF	11.05%	12.12%

Correlation

The correlation between BAMA and RAA is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 27, 2025	0.93

The correlation between BAMA and RAA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BAMA vs. RAA — Risk / Return Rank

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

BAMA

BAMA Risk / Return Rank: 68
BAMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
BAMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
BAMA Omega Ratio Rank: 71
BAMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
BAMA Martin Ratio Rank: 70

RAA

RAA Risk / Return Rank: 81
RAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
RAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
RAA Omega Ratio Rank: 80
RAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
RAA Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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. RAA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Active ETF (BAMA) and SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA). 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.

	BAMA	RAA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.24	2.60	-0.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.25	3.57	-0.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.48	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.79	4.17	-1.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.82	16.80	-3.98
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BAMA vs. RAA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.24, which is comparable to the RAA Sharpe Ratio of 2.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAMA and RAA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BAMA	RAA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.24	2.60	-0.36
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.67	1.49	+0.18

Drawdowns

BAMA vs. RAA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAMA drawdown since its inception was -12.27%, roughly equal to the maximum RAA drawdown of -11.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMA and RAA.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAMA	RAA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.27%	-11.80%	-0.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.35%	-5.91%	-1.44%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.63%	-0.40%	-0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.26%	-1.41%	+0.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.60%	1.46%	+0.14%

Volatility

BAMA vs. RAA - Volatility Comparison

Brookstone Active ETF (BAMA) has a higher volatility of 3.16% compared to SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA) at 2.92%. This indicates that BAMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RAA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BAMA	RAA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.16%	2.92%	+0.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.71%	7.44%	+0.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.17%	9.49%	-0.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.22%	12.71%	-2.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.22%	12.71%	-2.49%

BAMA vs. RAA - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAMA has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than RAA's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

BAMA vs. RAA - Dividend Comparison

BAMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%, less than RAA's 2.10% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMA Brookstone Active ETF	1.31%	1.54%	1.49%	0.45%
RAA SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF	2.10%	2.14%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BAMA and RAA in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, BAMA and RAA move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, BAMA or RAA?

BAMA has higher volatility (3.16%) compared to RAA (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMA dropped -12.27% vs RAA's -11.80%.

Which ETF is better, BAMA or RAA?

On 1-year performance, RAA leads with 24.53% vs 20.45% for BAMA. On fees, RAA is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, RAA has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAMA or RAA?

Over the 1-year period, RAA has performed better with a 24.53% return vs 20.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BAMA or RAA?

RAA is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for BAMA.

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

RAA has the higher dividend yield at 2.10%, compared with 1.31% for BAMA.

What is the main difference between BAMA and RAA?

They also come from different issuers: Brookstone and SMI Advisory Services. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for BAMA and 0.85% for RAA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RAA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.60 vs 2.24), 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.