EMM vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

EMM (Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMM is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Global X, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, EMM returned 64.91% vs 2.91% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.09, they often move in opposite directions. EMM charges 0.75%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

EMM vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) 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, EMM achieves a 38.17% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.

EMM

• 1D: 0.39%
• 1M: 10.41%
• YTD: 38.17%
• 6M: 42.91%
• 1Y: 64.91%
• 3Y*: 24.34%
• 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)

EMM vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	38.17%	30.21%	2.34%	9.11%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between EMM and BAMU is -0.16, 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	-0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	-0.09

Return for Risk

EMM vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMM

EMM Risk / Return Rank: 85
EMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
EMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
EMM Omega Ratio Rank: 85
EMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
EMM Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

EMM vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) 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.

	EMM	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.74	5.01	-2.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.44	8.84	-5.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	2.43	-0.93
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.42	24.72	-20.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.82	97.90	-80.07

EMM vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMM Sharpe Ratio is 2.74, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMM 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

EMM vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMM drawdown since its inception was -21.99%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMM and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMM	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.99%	-0.36%	-21.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.75%	-0.12%	-14.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.67%	-0.02%	-4.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.65%	0.03%	+3.62%

Volatility

EMM vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) has a higher volatility of 11.52% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that EMM'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

	EMM	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.52%	0.09%	+11.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.68%	0.40%	+21.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.86%	0.58%	+23.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.58%	0.87%	+18.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.58%	0.87%	+18.71%

EMM vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMM has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMM vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

EMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.65%, less than BAMU's 3.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	0.65%	0.90%	0.80%	0.66%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMM and BAMU in my portfolio?

EMM and BAMU have a correlation of -0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMM or BAMU?

EMM has higher volatility (11.52%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMM dropped -21.99% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, EMM or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, EMM leads with 64.91% vs 2.91% for BAMU. On fees, EMM is cheaper at 0.75% 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, EMM or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, EMM has performed better with a 64.91% return vs 2.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMM or BAMU?

EMM is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 0.65% for EMM.

What is the main difference between EMM and BAMU?

EMM is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMM and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 2.74), 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.