BAMU vs. CSHI

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) and CSHI (Neos Enhanced Income Cash Alternative ETF) are both Ultrashort Bond funds. BAMU is actively managed, while CSHI is passively managed. Over the past year, BAMU returned 2.93% vs 5.25% for CSHI. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. BAMU charges 1.09%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for CSHI.

Performance

BAMU vs. CSHI - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BAMU achieves a 1.06% return, which is significantly lower than CSHI's 2.26% return.

BAMU

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.20%
• YTD: 1.06%
• 6M: 1.25%
• 1Y: 2.93%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CSHI

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.37%
• YTD: 2.26%
• 6M: 2.59%
• 1Y: 5.25%
• 3Y*: 5.45%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BAMU vs. CSHI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.06%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%
CSHI Neos Enhanced Income Cash Alternative ETF	2.26%	5.05%	5.66%	1.75%

Correlation

The correlation between BAMU and CSHI is -0.10, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2023	-0.01

BAMU vs. CSHI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BAMU	CSHI
Financial Services	98.8%	11.8%
Basic Materials	-	1.8%
Communication Services	-	11.2%
Consumer Cyclical	-	10.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.9%
Energy	-	3.5%
Healthcare	-	8.5%
Industrials	-	8.3%
Real Estate	-	1.9%
Technology	-	35.6%
Utilities	-	2.3%

Return for Risk

BAMU vs. CSHI — 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: 97
BAMU Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
BAMU Omega Ratio Rank: 98
BAMU Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
BAMU Martin Ratio Rank: 99

CSHI

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

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. CSHI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) and Neos Enhanced Income Cash Alternative ETF (CSHI). 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	CSHI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.98	6.16	-1.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	8.77	11.83	-3.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.41	2.75	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	24.89	29.16	-4.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	97.89	154.18	-56.29
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BAMU vs. CSHI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAMU Sharpe Ratio is 4.98, which is comparable to the CSHI Sharpe Ratio of 6.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAMU and CSHI, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BAMU	CSHI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.98	6.16	-1.18
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	4.14	4.18	-0.04

Drawdowns

BAMU vs. CSHI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAMU drawdown since its inception was -0.36%, smaller than the maximum CSHI drawdown of -1.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMU and CSHI.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAMU	CSHI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.36%	-1.69%	+1.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.12%	-0.18%	+0.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-1.69%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.02%	-0.03%	+0.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.03%	0.03%	0.00%

Volatility

BAMU vs. CSHI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) is 0.07%, while Neos Enhanced Income Cash Alternative ETF (CSHI) has a volatility of 0.11%. This indicates that BAMU experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CSHI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BAMU	CSHI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.07%	0.11%	-0.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.43%	0.52%	-0.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59%	0.86%	-0.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.87%	1.32%	-0.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.87%	1.32%	-0.45%

BAMU vs. CSHI - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAMU has a 1.09% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHI's 0.38% expense ratio.

Dividends

BAMU vs. CSHI - Dividend Comparison

BAMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.06%, less than CSHI's 4.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.06%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%	0.00%
CSHI Neos Enhanced Income Cash Alternative ETF	4.90%	5.11%	5.72%	6.15%	1.52%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BAMU and CSHI in my portfolio?

BAMU and CSHI have a correlation of -0.10, 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 CSHI?

CSHI has higher volatility (0.11%) compared to BAMU (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMU dropped -0.36% vs CSHI's -1.69%.

Which ETF is better, BAMU or CSHI?

On 1-year performance, CSHI leads with 5.25% vs 2.93% for BAMU. On fees, CSHI is cheaper at 0.38% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAMU or CSHI?

Over the 1-year period, CSHI has performed better with a 5.25% return vs 2.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BAMU or CSHI?

CSHI is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

CSHI has the higher dividend yield at 4.90%, compared with 3.06% for BAMU.

What is the main difference between BAMU and CSHI?

They also come from different issuers: Brookstone and Neos. Their fees differ too: 1.09% for BAMU and 0.38% for CSHI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSHI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.16 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.