NCIQ vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

NCIQ (Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NCIQ is a Cryptocurrency fund tracking the Nasdaq Crypto US Settlement Price™ Index, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. NCIQ is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. Over the past year, NCIQ returned -41.13% vs 2.87% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.05, they often move in opposite directions. NCIQ charges 0.25%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

NCIQ vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF (NCIQ) 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, NCIQ achieves a -32.34% return, which is significantly lower than BAMU's 1.18% return.

NCIQ

• 1D: -3.39%
• 1M: -18.06%
• YTD: -32.34%
• 6M: -32.72%
• 1Y: -41.13%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.16%
• YTD: 1.18%
• 6M: 1.29%
• 1Y: 2.87%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NCIQ vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NCIQ Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF	-32.34%	-13.57%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	2.74%

Correlation

The correlation between NCIQ and BAMU is -0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 14, 2025	-0.05

Return for Risk

NCIQ vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

NCIQ

NCIQ Risk / Return Rank: 3
NCIQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
NCIQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
NCIQ Omega Ratio Rank: 3
NCIQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
NCIQ Martin Ratio Rank: 3

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.

NCIQ vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF (NCIQ) 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.

	NCIQ	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.86	4.94	-5.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.18	8.71	-9.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.87	2.41	-1.54
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.73	24.37	-25.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.24	96.52	-97.76

NCIQ vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NCIQ Sharpe Ratio is -0.86, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NCIQ 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

NCIQ vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NCIQ drawdown since its inception was -56.19%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NCIQ and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	NCIQ	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.19%	-0.36%	-55.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-56.19%	-0.12%	-56.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-54.75%	0.00%	-54.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.41%	-0.02%	-23.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	33.25%	0.03%	+33.22%

Volatility

NCIQ vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF (NCIQ) has a higher volatility of 14.16% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that NCIQ'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

	NCIQ	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.16%	0.09%	+14.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	36.86%	0.39%	+36.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	48.02%	0.58%	+47.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	48.11%	0.87%	+47.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	48.11%	0.87%	+47.24%

NCIQ vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

NCIQ has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

NCIQ vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

NCIQ 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%
NCIQ Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NCIQ and BAMU in my portfolio?

NCIQ and BAMU have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NCIQ or BAMU?

NCIQ has higher volatility (14.16%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NCIQ dropped -56.19% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, NCIQ or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, BAMU leads with 2.87% vs -41.13% for NCIQ. On fees, NCIQ is cheaper at 0.25% 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, NCIQ or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, BAMU has performed better with a 2.87% return vs -41.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NCIQ or BAMU?

NCIQ is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

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

What is the main difference between NCIQ and BAMU?

NCIQ is categorized as Cryptocurrency, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Hashdex and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for NCIQ and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.94 vs -0.86), 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.