BAMU vs. BUFQ

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) and BUFQ (FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone, while BUFQ is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ 100 Index - USD. BAMU is actively managed, while BUFQ is passively managed. Over the past year, BAMU returned 2.89% vs 17.85% for BUFQ. At a correlation of -0.03, they often move in opposite directions. BAMU charges 1.09%/yr vs 1.10%/yr for BUFQ.

Performance

BAMU vs. BUFQ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BAMU achieves a 1.20% return, which is significantly lower than BUFQ's 7.78% return.

BAMU

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.18%
• YTD: 1.20%
• 6M: 1.27%
• 1Y: 2.89%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BUFQ

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: -0.92%
• YTD: 7.78%
• 6M: 7.28%
• 1Y: 17.85%
• 3Y*: 15.94%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BAMU vs. BUFQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.20%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%
BUFQ FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF	7.78%	14.03%	16.41%	8.17%

Correlation

The correlation between BAMU and BUFQ is -0.21, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.21
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	-0.03

The correlation between BAMU and BUFQ shifts across timeframes, from -0.21 (1 year) to -0.03 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

BAMU vs. BUFQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

BAMU

BAMU Risk / Return Rank: 99
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

BUFQ

BUFQ Risk / Return Rank: 79
BUFQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
BUFQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
BUFQ Omega Ratio Rank: 81
BUFQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
BUFQ Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. BUFQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) and FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ). 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	BUFQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.98	2.14	+2.84
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	8.77	3.14	+5.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.42	1.42	+0.99
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	24.55	3.33	+21.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	97.21	16.49	+80.72

BAMU vs. BUFQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAMU Sharpe Ratio is 4.98, which is higher than the BUFQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAMU and BUFQ, 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. BUFQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAMU drawdown since its inception was -0.36%, smaller than the maximum BUFQ drawdown of -15.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMU and BUFQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAMU	BUFQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.36%	-15.74%	+15.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.12%	-5.39%	+5.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.74%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.68%	+1.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.02%	-2.29%	+2.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.03%	1.08%	-1.05%

Volatility

BAMU vs. BUFQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) is 0.08%, while FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ) has a volatility of 2.61%. This indicates that BAMU experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUFQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BAMU	BUFQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.08%	2.61%	-2.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.39%	6.75%	-6.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.58%	8.43%	-7.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.86%	13.31%	-12.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.86%	13.31%	-12.45%

BAMU vs. BUFQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAMU has a 1.09% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFQ's 1.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

BAMU vs. BUFQ - Dividend Comparison

BAMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.05%, while BUFQ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%
BUFQ FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BAMU and BUFQ in my portfolio?

BAMU and BUFQ have a correlation of -0.21, 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 BUFQ?

BUFQ has higher volatility (2.61%) compared to BAMU (0.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMU dropped -0.36% vs BUFQ's -15.74%.

Which ETF is better, BAMU or BUFQ?

On 1-year performance, BUFQ leads with 17.85% vs 2.89% for BAMU. On fees, BAMU is cheaper at 1.09% per year. On volatility, BAMU has been the lower-risk option at 0.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAMU or BUFQ?

Over the 1-year period, BUFQ has performed better with a 17.85% return vs 2.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BAMU or BUFQ?

BAMU is cheaper with a 1.09% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for BUFQ.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 0.00% for BUFQ.

What is the main difference between BAMU and BUFQ?

BAMU is categorized as Ultrashort Bond, while BUFQ is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Brookstone and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 1.09% for BAMU and 1.10% for BUFQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.98 vs 2.14), 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.