BAMG vs. QWLD

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

BAMG (Brookstone Growth Stock ETF) and QWLD (SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. BAMG is actively managed, while QWLD is passively managed. Over the past year, BAMG returned 21.38% vs 19.98% for QWLD. Their 0.78 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. BAMG charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for QWLD.

Performance

BAMG vs. QWLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brookstone Growth Stock ETF (BAMG) and SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with BAMG having a 11.75% return and QWLD slightly lower at 11.57%.

BAMG

• 1D: 2.57%
• 1M: 0.93%
• 6M: 15.41%
• YTD: 11.75%
• 1Y: 21.38%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 23.24%

QWLD

• 1D: 1.39%
• 1M: 3.65%
• 6M: 7.82%
• YTD: 11.57%
• 1Y: 19.98%
• 3Y*: 16.97%
• 5Y*: 10.27%
• 10Y*: 11.79%
• ALL TIME*: 10.66%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BAMG Brookstone Growth Stock ETF	$376.83K	$787.86K	$620.03K
QWLD SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF	$271.51K	$292.32K	$1.06M

BAMG vs. QWLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BAMG Brookstone Growth Stock ETF	11.75%	17.03%	24.01%	11.91%
QWLD SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF	11.57%	17.93%	14.44%	9.64%

Correlation

The correlation between BAMG and QWLD is 0.73, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	0.78

The correlation between BAMG and QWLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

BAMG vs. QWLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BAMG	QWLD
Technology	41.7%	24.9%
Healthcare	12.6%	13.2%
Industrials	9.7%	10.9%
Financial Services	9.7%	16.5%
Communication Services	9.6%	9.5%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	8.1%
Consumer Cyclical	6.1%	6.3%
Utilities	1.8%	3.8%
Basic Materials	0.8%	2.5%
Energy	0.6%	3.4%
Real Estate	-	1.0%

Return for Risk

BAMG vs. QWLD — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BAMG

BAMG Risk / Return Rank: 45
BAMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
BAMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
BAMG Omega Ratio Rank: 44
BAMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
BAMG Martin Ratio Rank: 49

QWLD

QWLD Risk / Return Rank: 77
QWLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
QWLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
QWLD Omega Ratio Rank: 80
QWLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
QWLD Martin Ratio Rank: 79

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BAMG vs. QWLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Growth Stock ETF (BAMG) and SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD). 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.

	BAMG	QWLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	2.07	-0.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.91	2.93	-1.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.37	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.64	2.62	-0.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.27	11.45	-5.19

BAMG vs. QWLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAMG Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is lower than the QWLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAMG and QWLD, 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

BAMG vs. QWLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAMG drawdown since its inception was -21.00%, smaller than the maximum QWLD drawdown of -31.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMG and QWLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAMG	QWLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.00%	-31.89%	+10.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.08%	-7.66%	-5.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.40%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-22.84%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-31.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.96%	0.00%	-0.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.51%	-3.66%	+1.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.42%	1.75%	+1.67%

Volatility

BAMG vs. QWLD - Volatility Comparison

Brookstone Growth Stock ETF (BAMG) has a higher volatility of 5.16% compared to SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD) at 2.60%. This indicates that BAMG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QWLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BAMG	QWLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.16%	2.60%	+2.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.88%	7.78%	+5.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.09%	9.77%	+6.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.20%	13.52%	+3.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.20%	15.13%	+2.07%

BAMG vs. QWLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAMG has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than QWLD's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

BAMG vs. QWLD - Dividend Comparison

BAMG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QWLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BAMG Brookstone Growth Stock ETF	0.00%	0.00%	1.24%	0.12%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QWLD SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF	1.75%	1.85%	1.74%	1.78%	2.02%	1.77%	1.77%	2.13%	2.33%	2.73%	2.22%	3.42%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BAMG and QWLD in my portfolio?

BAMG and QWLD have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BAMG or QWLD?

BAMG has higher volatility (5.16%) compared to QWLD (2.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMG dropped -21.00% vs QWLD's -31.89%.

Which ETF is better, BAMG or QWLD?

On 1-year performance, BAMG leads with 21.38% vs 19.98% for QWLD. On fees, QWLD is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, QWLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAMG or QWLD?

Over the 1-year period, BAMG has performed better with a 21.38% return vs 19.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BAMG or QWLD?

QWLD is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BAMG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BAMG or QWLD?

QWLD has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 0.00% for BAMG.

What is the main difference between BAMG and QWLD?

They also come from different issuers: Brookstone and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BAMG and 0.30% for QWLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QWLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs 1.34), 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.