BCFN vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

BCFN (Baron Financials ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BCFN is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Actively Managed, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. BCFN is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.08, they often move in opposite directions. BCFN charges 0.80%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

BCFN vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCFN achieves a -14.97% return, which is significantly lower than BAMU's 1.20% return.

BCFN

• 1D: -0.41%
• 1M: 0.14%
• YTD: -14.97%
• 6M: -16.44%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

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

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

BCFN vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BCFN Baron Financials ETF	-14.97%	-0.45%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.20%	0.06%

Correlation

The correlation between BCFN and BAMU is -0.08, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2025	-0.08

Return for Risk

BCFN vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCFN

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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

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.

BCFN vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Baron Financials ETF (BCFN) and Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU). 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.

	BCFN	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	4.98	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	8.77	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	2.42	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	24.55	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	97.21	—

Drawdowns

BCFN vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCFN drawdown since its inception was -20.95%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCFN and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCFN	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.95%	-0.36%	-20.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-0.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.09%	0.00%	-17.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.63%	-0.02%	-12.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.03%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BCFN	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	0.08%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	0.39%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.90%	0.58%	+18.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.90%	0.86%	+18.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.90%	0.86%	+18.04%

BCFN vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCFN has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCFN vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%
BCFN Baron Financials ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCFN and BAMU in my portfolio?

BCFN and BAMU have a correlation of -0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BCFN or BAMU?

On fees, BCFN is cheaper at 0.80% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCFN or BAMU?

BCFN is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

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

What is the main difference between BCFN and BAMU?

BCFN is categorized as Financials Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Baron Capital and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for BCFN and 1.09% for BAMU.