BAMO vs. INCM

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

BAMO (Brookstone Opportunities ETF) and INCM (Franklin Income Focus ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BAMO returned 14.10% vs 14.29% for INCM. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BAMO charges 1.30%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for INCM.

Performance

BAMO vs. INCM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brookstone Opportunities ETF (BAMO) and Franklin Income Focus ETF (INCM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with BAMO having a 5.78% return and INCM slightly higher at 5.80%.

BAMO

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: 0.53%
• YTD: 5.78%
• 6M: 5.50%
• 1Y: 14.10%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

INCM

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: -0.84%
• YTD: 5.80%
• 6M: 5.84%
• 1Y: 14.29%
• 3Y*: 10.60%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BAMO vs. INCM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BAMO Brookstone Opportunities ETF	5.78%	9.16%	14.39%	7.75%
INCM Franklin Income Focus ETF	5.80%	13.07%	6.80%	8.05%

Correlation

The correlation between BAMO and INCM is 0.69, 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	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2023	0.62

The correlation between BAMO and INCM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BAMO vs. INCM — Risk / Return Rank

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

BAMO

BAMO Risk / Return Rank: 66
BAMO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
BAMO Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
BAMO Omega Ratio Rank: 71
BAMO Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
BAMO Martin Ratio Rank: 67

INCM

INCM Risk / Return Rank: 86
INCM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
INCM Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
INCM Omega Ratio Rank: 84
INCM Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
INCM Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

BAMO vs. INCM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Opportunities ETF (BAMO) and Franklin Income Focus ETF (INCM). 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.

	BAMO	INCM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	2.58	-0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.07	3.71	-0.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.49	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.60	4.50	-1.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.87	18.66	-6.79

BAMO vs. INCM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAMO Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is comparable to the INCM Sharpe Ratio of 2.58. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAMO and INCM, 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

BAMO vs. INCM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAMO drawdown since its inception was -12.72%, which is greater than INCM's maximum drawdown of -7.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMO and INCM.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAMO	INCM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.72%	-7.84%	-4.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.45%	-3.19%	-2.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.84%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.55%	-1.36%	+0.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.26%	-1.08%	-0.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.19%	0.77%	+0.42%

Volatility

BAMO vs. INCM - Volatility Comparison

Brookstone Opportunities ETF (BAMO) has a higher volatility of 2.54% compared to Franklin Income Focus ETF (INCM) at 2.40%. This indicates that BAMO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than INCM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BAMO	INCM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.54%	2.40%	+0.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.83%	4.27%	+1.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.72%	5.57%	+1.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.58%	7.28%	+2.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.58%	7.28%	+2.30%

BAMO vs. INCM - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAMO has a 1.30% expense ratio, which is higher than INCM's 0.38% expense ratio.

Dividends

BAMO vs. INCM - Dividend Comparison

BAMO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.46%, less than INCM's 5.11% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMO Brookstone Opportunities ETF	1.46%	1.54%	1.58%	0.48%
INCM Franklin Income Focus ETF	5.11%	4.96%	5.06%	3.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BAMO and INCM in my portfolio?

BAMO and INCM have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BAMO or INCM?

BAMO has higher volatility (2.54%) compared to INCM (2.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMO dropped -12.72% vs INCM's -7.84%.

Which ETF is better, BAMO or INCM?

On 1-year performance, INCM leads with 14.29% vs 14.10% for BAMO. On fees, INCM is cheaper at 0.38% per year. On volatility, INCM has been the lower-risk option at 2.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAMO or INCM?

Over the 1-year period, INCM has performed better with a 14.29% return vs 14.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BAMO or INCM?

INCM is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 1.30% for BAMO.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BAMO or INCM?

INCM has the higher dividend yield at 5.11%, compared with 1.46% for BAMO.

What is the main difference between BAMO and INCM?

They also come from different issuers: Brookstone and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 1.30% for BAMO and 0.38% for INCM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

INCM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.58 vs 2.11), 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.