LRGG vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LRGG (Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LRGG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Nomura, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LRGG returned 1.39% vs 2.93% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. LRGG charges 0.45%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

LRGG vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) 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, LRGG achieves a -5.47% return, which is significantly lower than BAMU's 1.06% return.

LRGG

• 1D: -1.96%
• 1M: 0.76%
• YTD: -5.47%
• 6M: -4.88%
• 1Y: 1.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 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)

LRGG vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LRGG Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF	-5.47%	7.65%	8.81%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.06%	3.21%	2.65%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGG 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 May 16, 2024	-0.04

The correlation between LRGG and BAMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.17 (1 year) to -0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LRGG vs. BAMU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LRGG	BAMU
Technology	45.3%	-
Financial Services	18.7%	98.8%
Industrials	11.7%	-
Healthcare	8.7%	-
Consumer Cyclical	8.0%	-
Communication Services	7.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	-
Real Estate	1.8%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LRGG vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

LRGG

LRGG Risk / Return Rank: 10
LRGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
LRGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
LRGG Omega Ratio Rank: 10
LRGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
LRGG Martin Ratio Rank: 10

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.

LRGG vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) 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.

	LRGG	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.10	4.98	-4.88
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.23	8.77	-8.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.03	2.41	-1.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.07	24.89	-24.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.20	97.89	-97.69
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LRGG vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGG Sharpe Ratio is 0.10, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGG 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

	LRGG	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.10	4.98	-4.88
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.31	4.14	-3.83

Drawdowns

LRGG vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGG drawdown since its inception was -18.94%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGG and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRGG	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.94%	-0.36%	-18.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.94%	-0.12%	-18.82%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.55%	0.00%	-8.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.26%	-0.02%	-4.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.10%	0.03%	+7.07%

Volatility

LRGG vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) has a higher volatility of 4.08% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.07%. This indicates that LRGG'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

	LRGG	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.08%	0.07%	+4.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.95%	0.43%	+10.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.68%	0.59%	+13.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.65%	0.87%	+15.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.65%	0.87%	+15.78%

LRGG vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRGG vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

LRGG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.16%, less than BAMU's 3.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.06%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%
LRGG Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF	0.16%	0.16%	0.13%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRGG and BAMU in my portfolio?

LRGG 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, LRGG or BAMU?

LRGG has higher volatility (4.08%) compared to BAMU (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGG dropped -18.94% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, LRGG or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, BAMU leads with 2.93% vs 1.39% for LRGG. On fees, LRGG is cheaper at 0.45% 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, LRGG or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, BAMU has performed better with a 2.93% return vs 1.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LRGG or BAMU?

LRGG is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.06%, compared with 0.16% for LRGG.

What is the main difference between LRGG and BAMU?

LRGG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Nomura and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for LRGG and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.98 vs 0.10), 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.