BAMU vs. QHDG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) and QHDG (Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone, while QHDG is a Equity Hedged fund actively managed by Innovator. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BAMU returned 2.93% vs 11.61% for QHDG. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BAMU charges 1.09%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for QHDG.

Performance

BAMU vs. QHDG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) and Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF (QHDG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with BAMU having a 1.06% return and QHDG slightly lower at 1.03%.

BAMU

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

QHDG

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: 0.89%
• YTD: 1.03%
• 6M: 0.25%
• 1Y: 11.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BAMU vs. QHDG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.06%	3.21%	1.39%
QHDG Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF	1.03%	12.13%	6.35%

Correlation

The correlation between BAMU and QHDG is -0.12, 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	-0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2024	0.03

The correlation between BAMU and QHDG shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to 0.03 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BAMU vs. QHDG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BAMU	QHDG
Financial Services	98.8%	0.2%
Basic Materials	-	1.1%
Communication Services	-	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.7%
Energy	-	0.6%
Healthcare	-	4.2%
Industrials	-	2.8%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Technology	-	53.8%
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

BAMU vs. QHDG — 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

QHDG

QHDG Risk / Return Rank: 37
QHDG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
QHDG Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
QHDG Omega Ratio Rank: 41
QHDG Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
QHDG Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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. QHDG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) and Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF (QHDG). 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	QHDG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.98	1.33	+3.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	8.77	1.81	+6.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.41	1.26	+1.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	24.89	1.67	+23.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	97.89	5.69	+92.20
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. QHDG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAMU Sharpe Ratio is 4.98, which is higher than the QHDG Sharpe Ratio of 1.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAMU and QHDG, 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	QHDG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.98	1.33	+3.65
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	4.14	0.89	+3.25

Drawdowns

BAMU vs. QHDG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAMU drawdown since its inception was -0.36%, smaller than the maximum QHDG drawdown of -15.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMU and QHDG.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAMU	QHDG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.36%	-15.29%	+14.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.12%	-7.00%	+6.88%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.00%	+1.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.02%	-2.15%	+2.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.03%	2.05%	-2.02%

Volatility

BAMU vs. QHDG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) is 0.07%, while Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF (QHDG) has a volatility of 0.26%. This indicates that BAMU experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QHDG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BAMU	QHDG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.07%	0.26%	-0.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.43%	6.54%	-6.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59%	8.79%	-8.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.87%	12.44%	-11.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.87%	12.44%	-11.57%

BAMU vs. QHDG - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAMU has a 1.09% expense ratio, which is higher than QHDG's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

BAMU vs. QHDG - Dividend Comparison

BAMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.06%, while QHDG has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.06%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%
QHDG Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.02%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BAMU and QHDG in my portfolio?

BAMU and QHDG have a correlation of -0.12, 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 QHDG?

QHDG has higher volatility (0.26%) compared to BAMU (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMU dropped -0.36% vs QHDG's -15.29%.

Which ETF is better, BAMU or QHDG?

On 1-year performance, QHDG leads with 11.61% vs 2.93% for BAMU. On fees, QHDG is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, BAMU has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAMU or QHDG?

Over the 1-year period, QHDG has performed better with a 11.61% 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 QHDG?

QHDG is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.06%, compared with 0.00% for QHDG.

What is the main difference between BAMU and QHDG?

BAMU is categorized as Ultrashort Bond, while QHDG is Equity Hedged. They also come from different issuers: Brookstone and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 1.09% for BAMU and 0.79% for QHDG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.98 vs 1.33), 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.