MSFL vs. BAMU

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

MSFL (GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MSFL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MSFL returned -45.54% vs 2.87% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. MSFL charges 1.15%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

MSFL vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) 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, MSFL achieves a -37.88% return, which is significantly lower than BAMU's 1.36% return.

MSFL

• 1D: 2.74%
• 1M: 1.75%
• 6M: -30.12%
• YTD: -37.88%
• 1Y: -45.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.20%
• 6M: 1.24%
• YTD: 1.36%
• 1Y: 2.87%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MSFL vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF	-37.88%	16.99%	-8.21%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.36%	3.21%	3.29%

Correlation

The correlation between MSFL and BAMU is -0.20, 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	-0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 18, 2024	-0.04

The correlation between MSFL and BAMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.20 (1 year) to -0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

MSFL vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

MSFL

MSFL Risk / Return Rank: 3
MSFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
MSFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
MSFL Omega Ratio Rank: 3
MSFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
MSFL Martin Ratio Rank: 3

BAMU

BAMU Risk / Return Rank: 99
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.

MSFL vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) 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.

	MSFL	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.84	4.96	-5.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.10	8.74	-9.84
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.86	2.43	-1.56
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.74	24.38	-25.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.28	96.85	-98.12

MSFL vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MSFL Sharpe Ratio is -0.84, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MSFL 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

MSFL vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MSFL drawdown since its inception was -62.08%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MSFL and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	MSFL	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.08%	-0.36%	-61.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-62.08%	-0.12%	-61.96%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-51.59%	0.00%	-51.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.16%	-0.02%	-23.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	35.73%	0.03%	+35.70%

Volatility

MSFL vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) has a higher volatility of 21.11% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.07%. This indicates that MSFL'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

	MSFL	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	21.11%	0.07%	+21.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	49.31%	0.36%	+48.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	54.50%	0.58%	+53.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	50.61%	0.86%	+49.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	50.61%	0.86%	+49.75%

MSFL vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

MSFL has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

MSFL vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

MSFL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BAMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.05%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MSFL and BAMU in my portfolio?

MSFL and BAMU have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MSFL or BAMU?

MSFL has higher volatility (21.11%) compared to BAMU (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MSFL dropped -62.08% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, MSFL or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, BAMU leads with 2.87% vs -45.54% for MSFL. On fees, BAMU is cheaper at 1.09% 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, MSFL or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, BAMU has performed better with a 2.87% return vs -45.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MSFL or BAMU?

BAMU is cheaper with a 1.09% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for MSFL.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 0.00% for MSFL.

What is the main difference between MSFL and BAMU?

MSFL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for MSFL and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.96 vs -0.84), 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.