BAMU vs. BAMB

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) and BAMB (Brookstone Intermediate Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone, while BAMB is a Intermediate Core Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BAMU returned 2.91% vs 1.89% for BAMB. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 1.09% expense ratio.

Performance

BAMU vs. BAMB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) and Brookstone Intermediate Bond ETF (BAMB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BAMU achieves a 1.18% return, which is significantly higher than BAMB's -1.02% return.

BAMU

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.16%
• YTD: 1.18%
• 6M: 1.23%
• 1Y: 2.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMB

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 0.20%
• YTD: -1.02%
• 6M: -0.99%
• 1Y: 1.89%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BAMU vs. BAMB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%
BAMB Brookstone Intermediate Bond ETF	-1.02%	6.15%	3.01%	2.94%

Correlation

The correlation between BAMU and BAMB is 0.11, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	0.14

Return for Risk

BAMU vs. BAMB — Risk / Return Rank

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

BAMU

BAMU Risk / Return Rank: 98
BAMU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
BAMU Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
BAMU Omega Ratio Rank: 98
BAMU Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
BAMU Martin Ratio Rank: 99

BAMB

BAMB Risk / Return Rank: 15
BAMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
BAMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
BAMB Omega Ratio Rank: 14
BAMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
BAMB Martin Ratio Rank: 15

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.

BAMU vs. BAMB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) and Brookstone Intermediate Bond ETF (BAMB). 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.

	BAMU	BAMB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	5.01	0.49	+4.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	8.84	0.75	+8.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.43	1.09	+1.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	24.72	0.57	+24.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	97.90	1.49	+96.40

BAMU vs. BAMB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAMU Sharpe Ratio is 5.01, which is higher than the BAMB Sharpe Ratio of 0.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAMU and BAMB, 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

BAMU vs. BAMB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAMU drawdown since its inception was -0.36%, smaller than the maximum BAMB drawdown of -4.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMU and BAMB.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAMU	BAMB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.36%	-4.48%	+4.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.12%	-3.37%	+3.25%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-2.67%	+2.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.02%	-1.03%	+1.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.03%	1.27%	-1.24%

Volatility

BAMU vs. BAMB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) is 0.09%, while Brookstone Intermediate Bond ETF (BAMB) has a volatility of 1.13%. This indicates that BAMU experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BAMB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BAMU	BAMB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.09%	1.13%	-1.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.40%	2.85%	-2.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.58%	3.86%	-3.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.87%	4.07%	-3.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.87%	4.07%	-3.20%

BAMU vs. BAMB - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BAMU and BAMB have an expense ratio of 1.09%.

Dividends

BAMU vs. BAMB - Dividend Comparison

BAMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.05%, more than BAMB's 2.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMB Brookstone Intermediate Bond ETF	2.95%	2.85%	2.90%	0.73%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BAMU and BAMB in my portfolio?

BAMU and BAMB have a correlation of 0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BAMU or BAMB?

BAMB has higher volatility (1.13%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMU dropped -0.36% vs BAMB's -4.48%.

Which ETF is better, BAMU or BAMB?

On 1-year performance, BAMU leads with 2.91% vs 1.89% for BAMB. Both ETFs have the same 1.09% expense ratio. On volatility, BAMU has been the lower-risk option at 0.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAMU or BAMB?

Over the 1-year period, BAMU has performed better with a 2.91% return vs 1.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BAMU or BAMB?

BAMU and BAMB have the same expense ratio: 1.09% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BAMU or BAMB?

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 2.95% for BAMB.

What is the main difference between BAMU and BAMB?

BAMU is categorized as Ultrashort Bond, while BAMB is Intermediate Core Bond.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 0.49), 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.