ISVBF vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ISVBF (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ISVBF is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Inclusion Index, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. ISVBF is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. Over the past year, ISVBF returned 7.29% vs 2.93% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.09, they often move in opposite directions. ISVBF charges 0.40%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

ISVBF vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) 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, ISVBF achieves a -6.46% return, which is significantly lower than BAMU's 1.06% return.

ISVBF

• 1D: -2.03%
• 1M: -2.58%
• YTD: -6.46%
• 6M: -7.93%
• 1Y: 7.29%
• 3Y*: 9.94%
• 5Y*: -5.16%
• 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)

ISVBF vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF	-6.46%	30.64%	18.96%	-6.94%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.06%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between ISVBF and BAMU is -0.12, 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	-0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2023	-0.09

Return for Risk

ISVBF vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

ISVBF

ISVBF Risk / Return Rank: 13
ISVBF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
ISVBF Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
ISVBF Omega Ratio Rank: 13
ISVBF Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
ISVBF Martin Ratio Rank: 13

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.

ISVBF vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) 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.

	ISVBF	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.24	4.98	-4.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.54	8.77	-8.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.07	2.41	-1.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.38	24.89	-24.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.89	97.89	-97.00
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ISVBF vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ISVBF Sharpe Ratio is 0.24, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ISVBF 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

	ISVBF	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24	4.98	-4.74
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.17	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.15	4.14	-4.29

Drawdowns

ISVBF vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ISVBF drawdown since its inception was -53.78%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISVBF and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	ISVBF	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.78%	-0.36%	-53.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.18%	-0.12%	-19.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.77%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-53.22%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.18%	0.00%	-24.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-32.76%	-0.02%	-32.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.21%	0.03%	+8.18%

Volatility

ISVBF vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) has a higher volatility of 10.81% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.07%. This indicates that ISVBF'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

	ISVBF	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.81%	0.07%	+10.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.55%	0.43%	+26.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.57%	0.59%	+29.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.20%	0.87%	+29.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.21%	0.87%	+29.34%

ISVBF vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

ISVBF has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

ISVBF vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

ISVBF has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BAMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.06%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.06%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ISVBF and BAMU in my portfolio?

ISVBF and BAMU have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ISVBF or BAMU?

ISVBF has higher volatility (10.81%) compared to BAMU (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISVBF dropped -53.78% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, ISVBF or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, ISVBF leads with 7.29% vs 2.93% for BAMU. On fees, ISVBF is cheaper at 0.40% 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, ISVBF or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, ISVBF has performed better with a 7.29% return vs 2.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ISVBF or BAMU?

ISVBF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.06%, compared with 0.00% for ISVBF.

What is the main difference between ISVBF and BAMU?

ISVBF is categorized as China Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for ISVBF and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.98 vs 0.24), 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.