BAMG vs. SCHG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BAMG (Brookstone Growth Stock ETF) and SCHG (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. BAMG is actively managed, while SCHG is passively managed. Over the past year, BAMG returned 24.36% vs 17.91% for SCHG. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BAMG charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for SCHG.

Performance

BAMG vs. SCHG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brookstone Growth Stock ETF (BAMG) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BAMG achieves a 8.87% return, which is significantly higher than SCHG's 1.35% return.

BAMG

• 1D: -2.21%
• 1M: 2.19%
• YTD: 8.87%
• 6M: 7.34%
• 1Y: 24.36%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SCHG

• 1D: -1.37%
• 1M: -3.93%
• YTD: 1.35%
• 6M: 0.09%
• 1Y: 17.91%
• 3Y*: 22.13%
• 5Y*: 13.27%
• 10Y*: 18.65%

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

BAMG vs. SCHG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BAMG Brookstone Growth Stock ETF	8.87%	17.03%	24.01%	11.91%
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	1.35%	17.50%	34.95%	15.42%

Correlation

The correlation between BAMG and SCHG is 0.85, 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	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	0.89

The correlation between BAMG and SCHG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

BAMG vs. SCHG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BAMG	SCHG
Technology	41.8%	46.7%
Healthcare	11.8%	8.4%
Communication Services	10.8%	15.3%
Financial Services	9.5%	6.6%
Industrials	9.0%	6.0%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	1.6%
Consumer Cyclical	6.6%	12.4%
Utilities	1.7%	0.4%
Basic Materials	0.7%	1.3%
Energy	0.5%	0.7%
Real Estate	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

BAMG vs. SCHG — Risk / Return Rank

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

BAMG

BAMG Risk / Return Rank: 46
BAMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
BAMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
BAMG Omega Ratio Rank: 47
BAMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
BAMG Martin Ratio Rank: 46

SCHG

SCHG Risk / Return Rank: 28
SCHG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
SCHG Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
SCHG Omega Ratio Rank: 30
SCHG Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
SCHG Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

BAMG vs. SCHG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Growth Stock ETF (BAMG) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). 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	SCHG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.60	1.11	+0.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.20	1.56	+0.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.20	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.87	1.10	+0.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.21	3.58	+3.63

BAMG vs. SCHG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAMG Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is higher than the SCHG Sharpe Ratio of 1.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAMG and SCHG, 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. SCHG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAMG drawdown since its inception was -21.00%, smaller than the maximum SCHG drawdown of -34.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMG and SCHG.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAMG	SCHG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.00%	-34.59%	+13.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.08%	-16.41%	+3.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.39%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-34.59%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.59%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.22%	-6.46%	+4.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.50%	-5.20%	+2.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.39%	5.02%	-1.63%

Volatility

BAMG vs. SCHG - Volatility Comparison

Brookstone Growth Stock ETF (BAMG) has a higher volatility of 6.44% compared to Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) at 5.91%. This indicates that BAMG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SCHG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BAMG	SCHG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.44%	5.91%	+0.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.13%	12.52%	-0.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.34%	16.24%	-0.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.18%	22.38%	-5.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.18%	21.58%	-4.40%

BAMG vs. SCHG - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAMG has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHG's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

BAMG vs. SCHG - Dividend Comparison

BAMG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while SCHG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.38%.

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%
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	0.38%	0.36%	0.39%	0.46%	0.55%	0.42%	0.52%	0.82%	1.27%	1.01%	1.04%	1.22%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BAMG and SCHG in my portfolio?

BAMG and SCHG have a correlation of 0.85, 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 SCHG?

BAMG has higher volatility (6.44%) compared to SCHG (5.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMG dropped -21.00% vs SCHG's -34.59%.

Which ETF is better, BAMG or SCHG?

On 1-year performance, BAMG leads with 24.36% vs 17.91% for SCHG. On fees, SCHG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, SCHG has been the lower-risk option at 5.91%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAMG or SCHG?

Over the 1-year period, BAMG has performed better with a 24.36% return vs 17.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BAMG or SCHG?

SCHG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BAMG.

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

SCHG has the higher dividend yield at 0.38%, compared with 0.00% for BAMG.

What is the main difference between BAMG and SCHG?

They also come from different issuers: Brookstone and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BAMG and 0.04% for SCHG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 vs 1.11), 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.