FLM vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FLM (First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLM is a Building & Construction fund tracking the ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. FLM is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.50, they often move in opposite directions. FLM charges 0.70%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

FLM vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

FLM

• 1D: -4.55%
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.16%
• YTD: 1.18%
• 6M: 1.29%
• 1Y: 2.87%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLM vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF	-4.55%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	0.10%

Correlation

The correlation between FLM and BAMU is -0.50, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2026	-0.50

Return for Risk

FLM vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLM

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

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.

FLM vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) 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.

	FLM	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	4.94	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	8.71	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	2.41	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	24.37	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	96.52	—

Drawdowns

FLM vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLM drawdown since its inception was -4.55%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLM and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLM	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.55%	-0.36%	-4.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-0.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.55%	0.00%	-4.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.27%	-0.02%	-2.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.03%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FLM	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	0.09%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	0.39%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.02%	0.58%	+50.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	51.02%	0.87%	+50.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	51.02%	0.87%	+50.15%

FLM vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLM has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLM vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

FLM 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%
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLM and BAMU in my portfolio?

FLM and BAMU have a correlation of -0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FLM or BAMU?

On fees, FLM is cheaper at 0.70% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLM or BAMU?

FLM is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

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

What is the main difference between FLM and BAMU?

FLM is categorized as Building & Construction, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for FLM and 1.09% for BAMU.