CGGR vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CGGR (Capital Group Growth ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGGR is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Capital Group, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CGGR returned 20.91% vs 2.91% for BAMU. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGGR charges 0.39%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

CGGR vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group Growth ETF (CGGR) 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, CGGR achieves a 5.01% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.

CGGR

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: 1.39%
• YTD: 5.01%
• 6M: 4.06%
• 1Y: 20.91%
• 3Y*: 23.98%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.16%
• YTD: 1.18%
• 6M: 1.23%
• 1Y: 2.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CGGR vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CGGR Capital Group Growth ETF	5.01%	19.75%	32.12%	16.76%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between CGGR and BAMU is -0.15, 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	-0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	0.01

The correlation between CGGR and BAMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.15 (1 year) to 0.01 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CGGR vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGGR

CGGR Risk / Return Rank: 33
CGGR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
CGGR Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
CGGR Omega Ratio Rank: 34
CGGR Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
CGGR Martin Ratio Rank: 34

BAMU

BAMU Risk / Return Rank: 98
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.

CGGR vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group Growth ETF (CGGR) 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.

	CGGR	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.21	5.01	-3.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.69	8.84	-7.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	2.43	-1.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.39	24.72	-23.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.02	97.90	-92.87

CGGR vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGGR Sharpe Ratio is 1.21, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGGR and BAMU, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

CGGR vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGGR drawdown since its inception was -28.90%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGGR and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGGR	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.90%	-0.36%	-28.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.13%	-0.12%	-15.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.24%	0.00%	-2.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.67%	-0.02%	-7.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.17%	0.03%	+4.14%

Volatility

CGGR vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Capital Group Growth ETF (CGGR) has a higher volatility of 7.24% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that CGGR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BAMU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGGR	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.24%	0.09%	+7.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.90%	0.40%	+13.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.43%	0.58%	+16.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.00%	0.87%	+21.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.00%	0.87%	+21.13%

CGGR vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGGR has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGGR vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

CGGR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.09%, less than BAMU's 3.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%	0.00%
CGGR Capital Group Growth ETF	0.09%	0.10%	0.33%	0.40%	0.33%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGGR and BAMU in my portfolio?

CGGR and BAMU have a correlation of -0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGGR or BAMU?

CGGR has higher volatility (7.24%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGGR dropped -28.90% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, CGGR or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, CGGR leads with 20.91% vs 2.91% for BAMU. On fees, CGGR is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, BAMU has been the lower-risk option at 0.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGGR or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, CGGR has performed better with a 20.91% return vs 2.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGGR or BAMU?

CGGR is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 0.09% for CGGR.

What is the main difference between CGGR and BAMU?

CGGR is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for CGGR and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 1.21), 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.