NBDS vs. ASMH

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NBDS (Neuberger Berman Disrupters ETF) and ASMH (ASML Holding NV ADR Hedged ETF) are both Technology Equities funds. NBDS is actively managed, while ASMH is passively managed. Over the past year, NBDS returned 33.80% vs 130.11% for ASMH. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NBDS charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for ASMH.

Performance

NBDS vs. ASMH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Neuberger Berman Disrupters ETF (NBDS) and ASML Holding NV ADR Hedged ETF (ASMH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NBDS achieves a 17.73% return, which is significantly lower than ASMH's 63.99% return.

NBDS

• 1D: -0.69%
• 1M: 16.39%
• YTD: 17.73%
• 6M: 15.50%
• 1Y: 33.80%
• 3Y*: 23.07%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ASMH

• 1D: 1.53%
• 1M: 25.24%
• YTD: 63.99%
• 6M: 53.18%
• 1Y: 130.11%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NBDS vs. ASMH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NBDS Neuberger Berman Disrupters ETF	17.73%	36.78%
ASMH ASML Holding NV ADR Hedged ETF	63.99%	58.84%

Correlation

The correlation between NBDS and ASMH is 0.58, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 24, 2025	0.59

The correlation between NBDS and ASMH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NBDS vs. ASMH — Risk / Return Rank

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

NBDS

NBDS Risk / Return Rank: 34
NBDS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
NBDS Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
NBDS Omega Ratio Rank: 38
NBDS Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
NBDS Martin Ratio Rank: 27

ASMH

ASMH Risk / Return Rank: 88
ASMH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
ASMH Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
ASMH Omega Ratio Rank: 79
ASMH Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
ASMH Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

NBDS vs. ASMH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Neuberger Berman Disrupters ETF (NBDS) and ASML Holding NV ADR Hedged ETF (ASMH). 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.

	NBDS	ASMH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.38	3.36	-1.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.90	3.81	-1.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.47	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.42	8.24	-6.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.71	21.26	-17.55
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NBDS vs. ASMH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBDS Sharpe Ratio is 1.38, which is lower than the ASMH Sharpe Ratio of 3.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBDS and ASMH, 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

	NBDS	ASMH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.38	3.36	-1.98
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.52	3.59	-3.08

Drawdowns

NBDS vs. ASMH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBDS drawdown since its inception was -29.81%, which is greater than ASMH's maximum drawdown of -15.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBDS and ASMH.

Drawdown Indicators

	NBDS	ASMH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.81%	-15.89%	-13.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.96%	-15.89%	-8.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.51%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.69%	0.00%	-0.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.52%	-4.33%	-5.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.13%	6.14%	+2.99%

Volatility

NBDS vs. ASMH - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Neuberger Berman Disrupters ETF (NBDS) is 8.88%, while ASML Holding NV ADR Hedged ETF (ASMH) has a volatility of 13.84%. This indicates that NBDS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ASMH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NBDS	ASMH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.88%	13.84%	-4.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.41%	30.43%	-11.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.54%	38.94%	-14.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.64%	38.32%	-10.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.64%	38.32%	-10.68%

NBDS vs. ASMH - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBDS has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than ASMH's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

NBDS vs. ASMH - Dividend Comparison

NBDS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.32%, less than ASMH's 0.99% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
ASMH ASML Holding NV ADR Hedged ETF	0.99%	0.19%
NBDS Neuberger Berman Disrupters ETF	0.32%	0.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NBDS and ASMH in my portfolio?

NBDS and ASMH have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NBDS or ASMH?

ASMH has higher volatility (13.84%) compared to NBDS (8.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBDS dropped -29.81% vs ASMH's -15.89%.

Which ETF is better, NBDS or ASMH?

On 1-year performance, ASMH leads with 130.11% vs 33.80% for NBDS. On fees, ASMH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, NBDS has been the lower-risk option at 8.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NBDS or ASMH?

Over the 1-year period, ASMH has performed better with a 130.11% return vs 33.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NBDS or ASMH?

ASMH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for NBDS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NBDS or ASMH?

ASMH has the higher dividend yield at 0.99%, compared with 0.32% for NBDS.

What is the main difference between NBDS and ASMH?

They also come from different issuers: Neuberger Berman and Precidian Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for NBDS and 0.19% for ASMH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ASMH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.36 vs 1.38), 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.