BAMD vs. FUNL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BAMD (Brookstone Dividend Stock ETF) and FUNL (CornerCap Fundametrics Large-Cap ETF FUNL) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BAMD returned 7.69% vs 18.97% for FUNL. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BAMD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for FUNL.

Performance

BAMD vs. FUNL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brookstone Dividend Stock ETF (BAMD) and CornerCap Fundametrics Large-Cap ETF FUNL (FUNL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BAMD achieves a 8.13% return, which is significantly higher than FUNL's 5.66% return.

BAMD

• 1D: -0.67%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 8.13%
• 6M: 8.26%
• 1Y: 7.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FUNL

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 5.66%
• 6M: 7.22%
• 1Y: 18.97%
• 3Y*: 16.53%
• 5Y*: 9.42%
• 10Y*: —

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

BAMD vs. FUNL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BAMD Brookstone Dividend Stock ETF	8.13%	-1.33%	19.76%	10.73%
FUNL CornerCap Fundametrics Large-Cap ETF FUNL	5.66%	14.62%	15.55%	11.23%

Correlation

The correlation between BAMD and FUNL is 0.63, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2023	0.70

The correlation between BAMD and FUNL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

BAMD vs. FUNL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BAMD	FUNL
Financial Services	26.8%	19.3%
Energy	15.6%	7.6%
Technology	13.0%	14.6%
Consumer Defensive	12.8%	7.0%
Utilities	12.6%	5.0%
Industrials	4.7%	11.5%
Healthcare	4.2%	15.3%
Communication Services	4.0%	5.8%
Consumer Cyclical	3.2%	6.5%
Basic Materials	2.6%	2.2%
Real Estate	0.6%	4.5%

Return for Risk

BAMD vs. FUNL — Risk / Return Rank

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

BAMD

BAMD Risk / Return Rank: 22
BAMD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
BAMD Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
BAMD Omega Ratio Rank: 19
BAMD Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
BAMD Martin Ratio Rank: 23

FUNL

FUNL Risk / Return Rank: 80
FUNL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
FUNL Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
FUNL Omega Ratio Rank: 79
FUNL Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
FUNL Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

BAMD vs. FUNL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Dividend Stock ETF (BAMD) and CornerCap Fundametrics Large-Cap ETF FUNL (FUNL). 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.

	BAMD	FUNL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.72	2.19	-1.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.09	3.26	-2.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.47	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.11	5.01	-3.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.91	23.31	-20.41
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BAMD vs. FUNL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAMD Sharpe Ratio is 0.72, which is lower than the FUNL Sharpe Ratio of 2.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAMD and FUNL, 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

	BAMD	FUNL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72	2.19	-1.47
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.63	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.04	0.95	+0.09

Drawdowns

BAMD vs. FUNL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAMD drawdown since its inception was -15.91%, smaller than the maximum FUNL drawdown of -19.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMD and FUNL.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAMD	FUNL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.91%	-19.35%	+3.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.99%	-3.83%	-3.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-17.37%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.35%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.45%	-0.12%	-1.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.29%	-3.54%	-0.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.65%	0.82%	+1.83%

Volatility

BAMD vs. FUNL - Volatility Comparison

Brookstone Dividend Stock ETF (BAMD) has a higher volatility of 2.47% compared to CornerCap Fundametrics Large-Cap ETF FUNL (FUNL) at 0.00%. This indicates that BAMD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FUNL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BAMD	FUNL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.47%	0.00%	+2.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.83%	5.24%	+1.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.77%	8.82%	+1.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.35%	15.16%	-1.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.35%	15.29%	-1.94%

BAMD vs. FUNL - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAMD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than FUNL's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

BAMD vs. FUNL - Dividend Comparison

BAMD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.56%, more than FUNL's 2.25% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BAMD Brookstone Dividend Stock ETF	3.56%	3.86%	4.21%	0.70%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FUNL CornerCap Fundametrics Large-Cap ETF FUNL	2.25%	2.10%	1.78%	1.69%	1.84%	1.55%	0.45%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BAMD and FUNL in my portfolio?

BAMD and FUNL have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BAMD or FUNL?

BAMD has higher volatility (2.47%) compared to FUNL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMD dropped -15.91% vs FUNL's -19.35%.

Which ETF is better, BAMD or FUNL?

On 1-year performance, FUNL leads with 18.97% vs 7.69% for BAMD. On fees, FUNL is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, FUNL has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAMD or FUNL?

Over the 1-year period, FUNL has performed better with a 18.97% return vs 7.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BAMD or FUNL?

FUNL is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BAMD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BAMD or FUNL?

BAMD has the higher dividend yield at 3.56%, compared with 2.25% for FUNL.

What is the main difference between BAMD and FUNL?

They also come from different issuers: Brookstone and CornerCap. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BAMD and 0.50% for FUNL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FUNL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 vs 0.72), 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.