MAGC vs. BAMU

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

MAGC (Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MAGC is a China Equities fund actively managed by Roundhill, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MAGC returned -19.72% vs 2.85% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. MAGC charges 0.59%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

MAGC vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGC) 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, MAGC achieves a -20.52% return, which is significantly lower than BAMU's 1.34% return.

MAGC

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: 0.91%
• 6M: -24.55%
• YTD: -20.52%
• 1Y: -19.72%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 0.18%
• 6M: 1.26%
• YTD: 1.34%
• 1Y: 2.85%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MAGC vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MAGC Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF	-20.52%	16.35%	-14.03%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.34%	3.21%	0.90%

Correlation

The correlation between MAGC and BAMU is -0.10, 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	-0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 3, 2024	-0.06

Return for Risk

MAGC vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

MAGC

MAGC Risk / Return Rank: 4
MAGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
MAGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
MAGC Omega Ratio Rank: 4
MAGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
MAGC Martin Ratio Rank: 5

BAMU

BAMU Risk / Return Rank: 99
BAMU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
BAMU Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
BAMU Omega Ratio Rank: 99
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.

MAGC vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGC) 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.

	MAGC	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.73	4.92	-5.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.96	8.68	-9.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.90	2.42	-1.52
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.47	24.20	-24.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.96	96.16	-97.12

MAGC vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MAGC Sharpe Ratio is -0.73, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MAGC 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

MAGC vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MAGC drawdown since its inception was -41.99%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MAGC and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	MAGC	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.99%	-0.36%	-41.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-41.99%	-0.12%	-41.87%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.21%	-0.02%	-33.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.35%	-0.02%	-16.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.63%	0.03%	+20.60%

Volatility

MAGC vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGC) has a higher volatility of 8.57% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.08%. This indicates that MAGC'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

	MAGC	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.57%	0.08%	+8.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.58%	0.36%	+20.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.35%	0.58%	+26.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.02%	0.86%	+33.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.02%	0.86%	+33.16%

MAGC vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

MAGC has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

MAGC vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

MAGC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.16%, more than BAMU's 3.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%
MAGC Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF	5.16%	4.10%	1.02%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MAGC and BAMU in my portfolio?

MAGC and BAMU have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MAGC or BAMU?

MAGC has higher volatility (8.57%) compared to BAMU (0.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MAGC dropped -41.99% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, MAGC or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, BAMU leads with 2.85% vs -19.72% for MAGC. On fees, MAGC is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, BAMU has been the lower-risk option at 0.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MAGC or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, BAMU has performed better with a 2.85% return vs -19.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MAGC or BAMU?

MAGC is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

MAGC has the higher dividend yield at 5.16%, compared with 3.05% for BAMU.

What is the main difference between MAGC and BAMU?

MAGC is categorized as China Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Roundhill and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for MAGC and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.92 vs -0.72), 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.