PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IMRA vs. BAMU
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IMRA vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bitwise MARA Option Income Strategy ETF (IMRA) and Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IMRA achieves a 30.23% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.08% return.


IMRA

1D
-0.02%
1M
7.79%
YTD
30.23%
6M
-0.17%
1Y
-33.71%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

BAMU

1D
0.02%
1M
0.22%
YTD
1.08%
6M
1.31%
1Y
2.95%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IMRA vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between IMRA 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 Apr 4, 2025

-0.08

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

IMRA vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

IMRA
IMRA Risk / Return Rank: 55
Overall Rank
IMRA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IMRA Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
Sortino Ratio Rank
IMRA Omega Ratio Rank: 55
Omega Ratio Rank
IMRA Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
Calmar Ratio Rank
IMRA Martin Ratio Rank: 55
Martin Ratio Rank

BAMU
BAMU Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
BAMU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9898
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BAMU Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
BAMU Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
BAMU Calmar Ratio Rank: 9999
Calmar Ratio Rank
BAMU Martin Ratio Rank: 9999
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

IMRA vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bitwise MARA Option Income Strategy ETF (IMRA) 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.


IMRABAMUDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-5.58

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-9.37

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.93

2.42

-1.49

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.55

25.06

-25.61

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.89

98.57

-99.46

IMRA vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMRA Sharpe Ratio is -0.57, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMRA 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IMRABAMUDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.57

5.01

-5.58

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.19

4.15

-4.34

Drawdowns

IMRA vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMRA drawdown since its inception was -61.55%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMRA and BAMU.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IMRABAMUDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-61.55%

-0.36%

-61.19%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-61.55%

-0.12%

-61.43%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-40.72%

0.00%

-40.72%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-28.25%

-0.02%

-28.23%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

38.02%

0.03%

+37.99%

Volatility

IMRA vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Bitwise MARA Option Income Strategy ETF (IMRA) has a higher volatility of 9.48% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.07%. This indicates that IMRA'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IMRABAMUDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.48%

0.07%

+9.41%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

43.47%

0.43%

+43.04%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

59.64%

0.59%

+59.05%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

61.29%

0.87%

+60.42%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

61.29%

0.87%

+60.42%

IMRA vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

IMRA has a 0.98% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.


Dividends

IMRA vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

IMRA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 108.68%, more than BAMU's 3.06% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023
BAMU
Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF
3.06%3.20%3.97%0.84%
IMRA
Bitwise MARA Option Income Strategy ETF
108.68%188.74%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


IMRA 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.

IMRA has higher volatility (9.48%) compared to BAMU (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMRA dropped -61.55% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

On 1-year performance, BAMU leads with 2.95% vs -33.71% for IMRA. On fees, IMRA is cheaper at 0.98% 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.

Over the 1-year period, BAMU has performed better with a 2.95% return vs -33.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IMRA is cheaper with a 0.98% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

IMRA has the higher dividend yield at 108.68%, compared with 3.06% for BAMU.

IMRA is categorized as Derivative Income, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Bitwise and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.98% for IMRA and 1.09% for BAMU.

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs -0.57), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IMRA and BAMU

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer