HCMT vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

HCMT (Direxion HCM Tactical Enhanced U.S. Equity Strategy ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HCMT is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Direxion, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, HCMT returned 27.56% vs 2.89% for BAMU. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HCMT charges 1.17%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

HCMT vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Direxion HCM Tactical Enhanced U.S. Equity Strategy ETF (HCMT) 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, HCMT achieves a 3.60% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.20% return.

HCMT

• 1D: -1.44%
• 1M: -1.94%
• YTD: 3.60%
• 6M: 0.78%
• 1Y: 27.56%
• 3Y*: 18.46%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.18%
• YTD: 1.20%
• 6M: 1.27%
• 1Y: 2.89%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

HCMT vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
HCMT Direxion HCM Tactical Enhanced U.S. Equity Strategy ETF	3.60%	7.39%	39.14%	14.35%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.20%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between HCMT 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	0.01

The correlation between HCMT and BAMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.14 (1 year) to 0.01 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

HCMT vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

HCMT

HCMT Risk / Return Rank: 33
HCMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
HCMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
HCMT Omega Ratio Rank: 31
HCMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
HCMT Martin Ratio Rank: 33

BAMU

BAMU Risk / Return Rank: 99
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.

HCMT vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion HCM Tactical Enhanced U.S. Equity Strategy ETF (HCMT) 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.

	HCMT	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.05	4.98	-3.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.48	8.77	-7.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	2.42	-1.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.81	24.55	-22.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.48	97.21	-92.73

HCMT vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HCMT Sharpe Ratio is 1.05, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HCMT 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

HCMT vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HCMT drawdown since its inception was -36.26%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HCMT and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	HCMT	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.26%	-0.36%	-35.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.27%	-0.12%	-15.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-36.26%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.64%	0.00%	-7.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.17%	-0.02%	-8.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.16%	0.03%	+6.13%

Volatility

HCMT vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Direxion HCM Tactical Enhanced U.S. Equity Strategy ETF (HCMT) has a higher volatility of 12.41% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.08%. This indicates that HCMT'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

	HCMT	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.41%	0.08%	+12.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.54%	0.39%	+19.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.41%	0.58%	+25.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.99%	0.86%	+28.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.99%	0.86%	+28.13%

HCMT vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

HCMT has a 1.17% expense ratio, which is higher than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

HCMT vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

HCMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.60%, 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%
HCMT Direxion HCM Tactical Enhanced U.S. Equity Strategy ETF	0.60%	0.43%	2.75%	0.63%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HCMT and BAMU in my portfolio?

HCMT 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, HCMT or BAMU?

HCMT has higher volatility (12.41%) compared to BAMU (0.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HCMT dropped -36.26% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, HCMT or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, HCMT leads with 27.56% vs 2.89% for BAMU. On fees, BAMU is cheaper at 1.09% per year. On volatility, BAMU has been the lower-risk option at 0.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HCMT or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, HCMT has performed better with a 27.56% return vs 2.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HCMT or BAMU?

BAMU is cheaper with a 1.09% expense ratio, compared with 1.17% for HCMT.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 0.60% for HCMT.

What is the main difference between HCMT and BAMU?

HCMT is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Direxion and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 1.17% for HCMT and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.98 vs 1.05), 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.