BAMV vs. IGF
BAMV (Brookstone Value Stock ETF) and IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BAMV is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Brookstone, while IGF is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index (Net). BAMV is actively managed, while IGF is passively managed. Over the past year, BAMV returned 15.31% vs 17.62% for IGF. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BAMV charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IGF.
Performance
BAMV vs. IGF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with BAMV having a 10.04% return and IGF slightly lower at 9.67%.
BAMV
- 1D
- -0.10%
- 1M
- 0.99%
- YTD
- 10.04%
- 6M
- 9.77%
- 1Y
- 15.31%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IGF
- 1D
- -0.03%
- 1M
- -0.16%
- YTD
- 9.67%
- 6M
- 8.98%
- 1Y
- 17.62%
- 3Y*
- 16.78%
- 5Y*
- 10.70%
- 10Y*
- 8.79%
BAMV vs. IGF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
BAMV Brookstone Value Stock ETF | 10.04% | 7.66% | 12.03% | 13.82% |
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF | 9.67% | 21.31% | 14.81% | 9.54% |
Correlation
The correlation between BAMV and IGF is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.46 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023 | 0.56 |
The correlation between BAMV and IGF shifts across timeframes, from 0.46 (1 year) to 0.56 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
BAMV vs. IGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
BAMV
IGF
Financial Services
-
Technology
-
Industrials
Healthcare
-
Communication Services
-
Energy
Basic Materials
-
Real Estate
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Utilities
Financial Services
BAMV
IGF
-
Technology
BAMV
IGF
-
Industrials
BAMV
IGF
Healthcare
BAMV
IGF
-
Communication Services
BAMV
IGF
-
Energy
BAMV
IGF
Basic Materials
BAMV
IGF
-
Real Estate
BAMV
IGF
Consumer Cyclical
BAMV
IGF
-
Consumer Defensive
BAMV
IGF
-
Utilities
BAMV
IGF
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
BAMV vs. IGF — Risk / Return Rank
BAMV
IGF
BAMV vs. IGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Value Stock ETF (BAMV) and iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF). 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.
| BAMV | IGF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.39 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.49 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.23 | 1.30 | -0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.47 | 3.02 | -0.55 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.45 | 8.52 | -1.07 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BAMV vs. IGF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BAMV drawdown since its inception was -14.56%, smaller than the maximum IGF drawdown of -58.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMV and IGF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BAMV | IGF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.56% | -58.33% | +43.77% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.23% | -5.87% | -0.36% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -14.28% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -20.83% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -42.11% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.17% | -2.99% | +1.82% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.99% | -11.84% | +9.85% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.06% | 2.07% | -0.01% |
Volatility
BAMV vs. IGF - Volatility Comparison
Brookstone Value Stock ETF (BAMV) has a higher volatility of 3.75% compared to iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) at 3.35%. This indicates that BAMV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IGF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BAMV | IGF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.75% | 3.35% | +0.40% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.62% | 8.73% | -0.11% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.90% | 10.56% | +1.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.72% | 13.96% | -0.24% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.72% | 16.73% | -3.01% |
BAMV vs. IGF - Expense Ratio Comparison
BAMV has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than IGF's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
BAMV vs. IGF - Dividend Comparison
BAMV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.27%, less than IGF's 2.91% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BAMV Brookstone Value Stock ETF | 1.27% | 1.32% | 3.66% | 0.19% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF | 2.91% | 3.23% | 3.21% | 3.36% | 2.67% | 2.42% | 2.33% | 3.27% | 3.52% | 2.95% | 2.98% | 3.25% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BAMV and IGF have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BAMV has higher volatility (3.75%) compared to IGF (3.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMV dropped -14.56% vs IGF's -58.33%.
On 1-year performance, IGF leads with 17.62% vs 15.31% for BAMV. On fees, IGF is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, IGF has been the lower-risk option at 3.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, IGF has performed better with a 17.62% return vs 15.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IGF is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BAMV.
IGF has the higher dividend yield at 2.91%, compared with 1.27% for BAMV.
BAMV is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while IGF is Industrials Equities. They also come from different issuers: Brookstone and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BAMV and 0.39% for IGF.
IGF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.68 vs 1.29), 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 BAMV and IGF
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