FEBT vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FEBT (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FEBT is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Allianz, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FEBT returned 19.91% vs 2.91% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. FEBT charges 0.74%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

FEBT vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) 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, FEBT achieves a 7.54% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.

FEBT

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 0.35%
• YTD: 7.54%
• 6M: 7.41%
• 1Y: 19.91%
• 3Y*: 15.72%
• 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)

FEBT vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	7.54%	12.72%	17.29%	10.18%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between FEBT and BAMU is -0.14, 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	-0.14
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	-0.02

The correlation between FEBT and BAMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.14 (1 year) to -0.02 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

FEBT vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEBT

FEBT Risk / Return Rank: 81
FEBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
FEBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FEBT Omega Ratio Rank: 85
FEBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
FEBT Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

FEBT vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) 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.

	FEBT	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.56	5.01	-2.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.66	8.84	-5.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	2.43	-0.93
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.31	24.72	-21.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.57	97.90	-81.33

FEBT vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBT Sharpe Ratio is 2.56, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBT 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

FEBT vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBT drawdown since its inception was -13.19%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBT and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBT	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.19%	-0.36%	-12.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.04%	-0.12%	-5.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.19%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.67%	0.00%	-0.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.17%	-0.02%	-1.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.20%	0.03%	+1.17%

Volatility

FEBT vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) has a higher volatility of 2.31% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that FEBT'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

	FEBT	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.31%	0.09%	+2.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.26%	0.40%	+5.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.82%	0.58%	+7.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.75%	0.87%	+8.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.75%	0.87%	+8.88%

FEBT vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEBT has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

FEBT vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

FEBT 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%
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.28%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEBT and BAMU in my portfolio?

FEBT and BAMU have a correlation of -0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FEBT or BAMU?

FEBT has higher volatility (2.31%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FEBT dropped -13.19% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, FEBT or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, FEBT leads with 19.91% vs 2.91% for BAMU. On fees, FEBT is cheaper at 0.74% 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, FEBT or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, FEBT has performed better with a 19.91% return vs 2.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEBT or BAMU?

FEBT is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

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

What is the main difference between FEBT and BAMU?

FEBT is categorized as Options Trading, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Allianz and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for FEBT and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 2.56), 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.