KEMQ vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

KEMQ (KraneShares Emerging Markets Consumer Technology Index ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - KEMQ is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the Solactive Emerging Markets Consumer Technology Index, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. KEMQ is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. Over the past year, KEMQ returned 28.90% vs 2.91% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.09, they often move in opposite directions. KEMQ charges 0.60%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

KEMQ vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in KraneShares Emerging Markets Consumer Technology Index ETF (KEMQ) 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, KEMQ achieves a 6.13% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.

KEMQ

• 1D: 0.89%
• 1M: 5.98%
• YTD: 6.13%
• 6M: 6.59%
• 1Y: 28.90%
• 3Y*: 24.53%
• 5Y*: -3.07%
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.16%
• YTD: 1.18%
• 6M: 1.23%
• 1Y: 2.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

KEMQ vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
KEMQ KraneShares Emerging Markets Consumer Technology Index ETF	6.13%	56.28%	13.81%	6.51%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between KEMQ and BAMU is -0.16, 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	-0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	-0.09

Return for Risk

KEMQ vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

KEMQ

KEMQ Risk / Return Rank: 29
KEMQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
KEMQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
KEMQ Omega Ratio Rank: 30
KEMQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
KEMQ Martin Ratio Rank: 26

BAMU

BAMU Risk / Return Rank: 98
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.

KEMQ vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares Emerging Markets Consumer Technology Index ETF (KEMQ) 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.

	KEMQ	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.07	5.01	-3.94
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.57	8.84	-7.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	2.43	-1.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.32	24.72	-23.40
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.42	97.90	-94.47

KEMQ vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KEMQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.07, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KEMQ 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

KEMQ vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KEMQ drawdown since its inception was -70.72%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KEMQ and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	KEMQ	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-70.72%	-0.36%	-70.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.94%	-0.12%	-21.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.94%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-66.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-28.72%	0.00%	-28.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-35.64%	-0.02%	-35.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.46%	0.03%	+8.43%

Volatility

KEMQ vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

KraneShares Emerging Markets Consumer Technology Index ETF (KEMQ) has a higher volatility of 11.02% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that KEMQ'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

	KEMQ	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.02%	0.09%	+10.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.56%	0.40%	+22.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.18%	0.58%	+26.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.11%	0.87%	+31.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.65%	0.87%	+28.78%

KEMQ vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

KEMQ has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

KEMQ vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

KEMQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.96%, more than BAMU's 3.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
KEMQ KraneShares Emerging Markets Consumer Technology Index ETF	4.96%	5.27%	0.73%	0.29%	0.00%	0.28%	2.28%	1.76%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KEMQ and BAMU in my portfolio?

KEMQ and BAMU have a correlation of -0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, KEMQ or BAMU?

KEMQ has higher volatility (11.02%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KEMQ dropped -70.72% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, KEMQ or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, KEMQ leads with 28.90% vs 2.91% for BAMU. On fees, KEMQ is cheaper at 0.60% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, KEMQ or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, KEMQ has performed better with a 28.90% return vs 2.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KEMQ or BAMU?

KEMQ is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

KEMQ has the higher dividend yield at 4.96%, compared with 3.05% for BAMU.

What is the main difference between KEMQ and BAMU?

KEMQ is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: CICC and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for KEMQ and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 1.07), 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.