IBLC vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IBLC (iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBLC is a Cryptocurrency fund tracking the ICE FactSet Global Blockchain Technologies Index, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. IBLC is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. Over the past year, IBLC returned 73.27% vs 2.93% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. IBLC charges 0.47%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

IBLC vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF (IBLC) 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, IBLC achieves a 32.34% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.06% return.

IBLC

• 1D: -3.00%
• 1M: 13.52%
• YTD: 32.34%
• 6M: 15.25%
• 1Y: 73.27%
• 3Y*: 48.31%
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

IBLC vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
IBLC iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF	32.34%	27.05%	18.58%	88.90%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.06%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between IBLC and BAMU is -0.17, 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	-0.17
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2023	-0.02

The correlation between IBLC and BAMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.17 (1 year) to -0.02 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IBLC vs. BAMU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IBLC	BAMU
Financial Services	66.6%	98.8%
Technology	30.7%	-
Communication Services	2.5%	-
Utilities	0.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

IBLC vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBLC

IBLC Risk / Return Rank: 33
IBLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
IBLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
IBLC Omega Ratio Rank: 33
IBLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
IBLC Martin Ratio Rank: 24

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.

IBLC vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF (IBLC) 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.

	IBLC	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	4.98	-3.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.92	8.77	-6.85
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	2.41	-1.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.64	24.89	-23.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.26	97.89	-94.63
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IBLC vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBLC Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBLC 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

	IBLC	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.34	4.98	-3.63
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.40	4.14	-3.75

Drawdowns

IBLC vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBLC drawdown since its inception was -62.54%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBLC and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBLC	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.54%	-0.36%	-62.18%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-44.94%	-0.12%	-44.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-51.68%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.99%	0.00%	-12.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.89%	-0.02%	-25.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	22.56%	0.03%	+22.53%

Volatility

IBLC vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF (IBLC) has a higher volatility of 14.67% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.07%. This indicates that IBLC'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

	IBLC	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.67%	0.07%	+14.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	40.76%	0.43%	+40.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	54.94%	0.59%	+54.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	64.49%	0.87%	+63.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	64.49%	0.87%	+63.62%

IBLC vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBLC has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBLC vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

IBLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.77%, more than BAMU's 3.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.06%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%	0.00%
IBLC iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF	4.77%	6.31%	1.60%	1.79%	0.84%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBLC and BAMU in my portfolio?

IBLC and BAMU have a correlation of -0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBLC or BAMU?

IBLC has higher volatility (14.67%) compared to BAMU (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBLC dropped -62.54% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, IBLC or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, IBLC leads with 73.27% vs 2.93% for BAMU. On fees, IBLC is cheaper at 0.47% 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, IBLC or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, IBLC has performed better with a 73.27% return vs 2.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBLC or BAMU?

IBLC is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

IBLC has the higher dividend yield at 4.77%, compared with 3.06% for BAMU.

What is the main difference between IBLC and BAMU?

IBLC is categorized as Cryptocurrency, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBLC and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.98 vs 1.34), 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.