FEBZ vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FEBZ (TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FEBZ is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the S&P 500 Price Index, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. FEBZ is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. Over the past year, FEBZ returned 20.13% vs 2.93% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.00, they often move in opposite directions. FEBZ charges 0.79%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

FEBZ vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) 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, FEBZ achieves a 7.99% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.06% return.

FEBZ

• 1D: -0.49%
• 1M: 4.07%
• YTD: 7.99%
• 6M: 7.75%
• 1Y: 20.13%
• 3Y*: 15.79%
• 5Y*: 11.22%
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.20%
• YTD: 1.06%
• 6M: 1.25%
• 1Y: 2.93%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FEBZ vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FEBZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF	7.99%	12.97%	16.88%	8.69%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.06%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between FEBZ and BAMU is -0.11, 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	-0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2023	-0.00

The correlation between FEBZ and BAMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.11 (1 year) to -0.00 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FEBZ vs. BAMU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FEBZ	BAMU
Technology	35.3%	-
Financial Services	13.4%	98.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	-
Communication Services	9.9%	-
Healthcare	8.8%	-
Industrials	7.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.2%	-
Energy	3.0%	-
Utilities	2.5%	-
Real Estate	2.0%	-
Basic Materials	1.6%	-

Return for Risk

FEBZ vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEBZ

FEBZ Risk / Return Rank: 65
FEBZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
FEBZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
FEBZ Omega Ratio Rank: 66
FEBZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
FEBZ Martin Ratio Rank: 67

BAMU

BAMU Risk / Return Rank: 98
BAMU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
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.

FEBZ vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) 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.

	FEBZ	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.17	4.98	-2.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.01	8.77	-5.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	2.41	-1.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.83	24.89	-22.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.21	97.89	-85.68
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FEBZ vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.17, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBZ 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FEBZ	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.17	4.98	-2.81
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.00	4.14	-3.14

Drawdowns

FEBZ vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBZ drawdown since its inception was -17.50%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBZ and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBZ	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.50%	-0.36%	-17.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.14%	-0.12%	-7.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.68%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.50%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.49%	0.00%	-0.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.32%	-0.02%	-3.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.65%	0.03%	+1.62%

Volatility

FEBZ vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) has a higher volatility of 2.29% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.07%. This indicates that FEBZ'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

	FEBZ	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.29%	0.07%	+2.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.09%	0.43%	+6.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.34%	0.59%	+8.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.47%	0.87%	+11.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.35%	0.87%	+11.48%

FEBZ vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEBZ has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

FEBZ vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

FEBZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.96%, less than BAMU's 3.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.06%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%
FEBZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF	2.96%	3.20%	3.88%	6.81%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEBZ and BAMU in my portfolio?

FEBZ and BAMU have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FEBZ or BAMU?

FEBZ has higher volatility (2.29%) compared to BAMU (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FEBZ dropped -17.50% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, FEBZ or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, FEBZ leads with 20.13% vs 2.93% for BAMU. On fees, FEBZ is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, BAMU has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FEBZ or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, FEBZ has performed better with a 20.13% return vs 2.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEBZ or BAMU?

FEBZ is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.06%, compared with 2.96% for FEBZ.

What is the main difference between FEBZ and BAMU?

FEBZ is categorized as Defined Outcome, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: TrueShares and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for FEBZ and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.98 vs 2.17), 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.