BAMU vs. BILS
BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) and BILS (SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF) are both Ultrashort Bond funds. BAMU is actively managed, while BILS is passively managed. Over the past year, BAMU returned 2.93% vs 3.90% for BILS. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BAMU charges 1.09%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for BILS.
Performance
BAMU vs. BILS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BAMU achieves a 1.06% return, which is significantly lower than BILS's 1.40% return.
BAMU
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 0.20%
- YTD
- 1.06%
- 6M
- 1.25%
- 1Y
- 2.93%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BILS
- 1D
- -0.01%
- 1M
- 0.28%
- YTD
- 1.40%
- 6M
- 1.73%
- 1Y
- 3.90%
- 3Y*
- 4.66%
- 5Y*
- 3.29%
- 10Y*
- —
BAMU vs. BILS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF | 1.06% | 3.21% | 4.14% | 1.20% |
BILS SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF | 1.40% | 4.23% | 5.17% | 1.52% |
Correlation
The correlation between BAMU and BILS is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.33 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2023 | 0.32 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BAMU vs. BILS — Risk / Return Rank
BAMU
BILS
BAMU vs. BILS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) and SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS). 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.
| BAMU | BILS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -11.82 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -92.06 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 2.41 | 42.08 | -39.67 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 24.89 | 129.91 | -105.02 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 97.89 | 1,442.41 | -1,344.52 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| BAMU | BILS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.98 | 16.80 | -11.82 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 10.79 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 4.14 | 9.79 | -5.65 |
Drawdowns
BAMU vs. BILS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BAMU drawdown since its inception was -0.36%, smaller than the maximum BILS drawdown of -0.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMU and BILS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BAMU | BILS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -0.36% | -0.41% | +0.05% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.12% | -0.03% | -0.09% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -0.04% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -0.38% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.01% | +0.01% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.02% | -0.04% | +0.02% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.03% | 0.00% | +0.03% |
Volatility
BAMU vs. BILS - Volatility Comparison
Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) has a higher volatility of 0.07% compared to SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS) at 0.06%. This indicates that BAMU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BILS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BAMU | BILS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.07% | 0.06% | +0.01% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.43% | 0.14% | +0.29% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.59% | 0.23% | +0.36% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 0.87% | 0.31% | +0.56% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 0.87% | 0.30% | +0.57% |
BAMU vs. BILS - Expense Ratio Comparison
BAMU has a 1.09% expense ratio, which is higher than BILS's 0.14% expense ratio.
Dividends
BAMU vs. BILS - Dividend Comparison
BAMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.06%, less than BILS's 3.81% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF | 3.06% | 3.20% | 3.97% | 0.84% | 0.00% |
BILS SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF | 3.81% | 4.08% | 5.01% | 4.98% | 1.61% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BAMU and BILS have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BAMU has higher volatility (0.07%) compared to BILS (0.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMU dropped -0.36% vs BILS's -0.41%.
On 1-year performance, BILS leads with 3.90% vs 2.93% for BAMU. On fees, BILS is cheaper at 0.14% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, BILS has performed better with a 3.90% return vs 2.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BILS is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.
BILS has the higher dividend yield at 3.81%, compared with 3.06% for BAMU.
They also come from different issuers: Brookstone and State Street. Their fees differ too: 1.09% for BAMU and 0.14% for BILS.
BILS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.80 vs 4.98), 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.
Find the right allocation for BAMU and BILS
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer