IWF vs. BAMU
IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. IWF is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. Over the past year, IWF returned 17.87% vs 2.87% for BAMU. At a 0.00 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IWF charges 0.18%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.
Performance
IWF vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 1.43% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.
IWF
- 1D
- -1.60%
- 1M
- -4.07%
- YTD
- 1.43%
- 6M
- 0.16%
- 1Y
- 17.87%
- 3Y*
- 21.78%
- 5Y*
- 12.94%
- 10Y*
- 18.27%
BAMU
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.16%
- YTD
- 1.18%
- 6M
- 1.29%
- 1Y
- 2.87%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWF vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 1.43% | 18.33% | 33.12% | 15.15% |
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF | 1.18% | 3.21% | 4.14% | 1.20% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWF and BAMU is -0.18, 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 | -0.18 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023 | 0.00 |
The correlation between IWF and BAMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.18 (1 year) to 0.00 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
IWF vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank
IWF
BAMU
IWF vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) 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.
| IWF | BAMU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -3.83 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -7.15 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.20 | 2.41 | -1.21 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.10 | 24.37 | -23.27 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.59 | 96.52 | -92.94 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWF vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and BAMU.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWF | BAMU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -64.25% | -0.36% | -63.89% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.27% | -0.12% | -16.15% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.36% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -32.72% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -32.72% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.88% | 0.00% | -6.88% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -22.05% | -0.02% | -22.03% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.99% | 0.03% | +4.96% |
Volatility
IWF vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a higher volatility of 6.08% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that IWF'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
| IWF | BAMU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.08% | 0.09% | +5.99% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.65% | 0.39% | +12.26% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.24% | 0.58% | +15.66% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.52% | 0.87% | +20.65% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.01% | 0.87% | +20.14% |
IWF vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWF vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison
IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.36%, less than BAMU's 3.05% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF | 3.05% | 3.20% | 3.97% | 0.84% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 0.36% | 0.36% | 0.46% | 0.67% | 0.91% | 0.49% | 0.66% | 0.99% | 1.27% | 1.10% | 1.43% | 1.37% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWF and BAMU have a correlation of -0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWF has higher volatility (6.08%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs BAMU's -0.36%.
On 1-year performance, IWF leads with 17.87% vs 2.87% for BAMU. On fees, IWF is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, BAMU has been the lower-risk option at 0.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, IWF has performed better with a 17.87% return vs 2.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWF is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.
BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 0.36% for IWF.
IWF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 1.09% for BAMU.
BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.94 vs 1.11), 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.
Find the right allocation for IWF 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