BAMU vs. TBLL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) and TBLL (Invesco Short Term Treasury ETF) are both Ultrashort Bond funds. BAMU is actively managed, while TBLL is passively managed. Over the past year, BAMU returned 2.93% vs 3.93% for TBLL. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BAMU charges 1.09%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for TBLL.

Performance

BAMU vs. TBLL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) and Invesco Short Term Treasury ETF (TBLL). 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 TBLL's 1.43% return.

BAMU

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

TBLL

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.29%
• YTD: 1.43%
• 6M: 1.74%
• 1Y: 3.93%
• 3Y*: 4.66%
• 5Y*: 3.35%
• 10Y*: —

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

BAMU vs. TBLL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.06%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%
TBLL Invesco Short Term Treasury ETF	1.43%	4.21%	5.11%	1.44%

Correlation

The correlation between BAMU and TBLL is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2023	0.18

The correlation between BAMU and TBLL shifts across timeframes, from 0.18 (all time) to 0.32 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BAMU vs. TBLL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BAMU	TBLL
Financial Services	98.8%	64.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BAMU vs. TBLL — 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

TBLL

TBLL Risk / Return Rank: 100
TBLL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
TBLL Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
TBLL Omega Ratio Rank: 100
TBLL Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
TBLL Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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. TBLL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) and Invesco Short Term Treasury ETF (TBLL). 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	TBLL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.98	20.94	-15.96
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	8.77	218.31	-209.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.41	102.92	-100.51
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	24.89	416.84	-391.95
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	97.89	3,533.11	-3,435.22
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. TBLL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAMU Sharpe Ratio is 4.98, which is lower than the TBLL Sharpe Ratio of 20.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAMU and TBLL, 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	TBLL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.98	20.94	-15.96
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	7.53	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	4.14	4.26	-0.12

Drawdowns

BAMU vs. TBLL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAMU drawdown since its inception was -0.36%, smaller than the maximum TBLL drawdown of -0.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMU and TBLL.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAMU	TBLL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.36%	-0.63%	+0.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.12%	-0.01%	-0.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.36%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.36%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.02%	-0.14%	+0.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.03%	0.00%	+0.03%

Volatility

BAMU vs. TBLL - Volatility Comparison

Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) has a higher volatility of 0.07% compared to Invesco Short Term Treasury ETF (TBLL) at 0.05%. This indicates that BAMU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TBLL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BAMU	TBLL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.07%	0.05%	+0.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.43%	0.12%	+0.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59%	0.19%	+0.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.87%	0.45%	+0.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.87%	0.56%	+0.31%

BAMU vs. TBLL - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAMU has a 1.09% expense ratio, which is higher than TBLL's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

BAMU vs. TBLL - Dividend Comparison

BAMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.06%, less than TBLL's 3.81% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.06%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TBLL Invesco Short Term Treasury ETF	3.81%	4.08%	4.99%	4.63%	1.37%	0.03%	0.80%	2.08%	1.69%	0.71%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BAMU and TBLL in my portfolio?

BAMU and TBLL have a correlation of 0.32, 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 TBLL?

BAMU has higher volatility (0.07%) compared to TBLL (0.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMU dropped -0.36% vs TBLL's -0.63%.

Which ETF is better, BAMU or TBLL?

On 1-year performance, TBLL leads with 3.93% vs 2.93% for BAMU. On fees, TBLL is cheaper at 0.08% 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 TBLL?

Over the 1-year period, TBLL has performed better with a 3.93% 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 TBLL?

TBLL is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

TBLL has the higher dividend yield at 3.81%, compared with 3.06% for BAMU.

What is the main difference between BAMU and TBLL?

They also come from different issuers: Brookstone and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 1.09% for BAMU and 0.08% for TBLL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TBLL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (20.94 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.