QBF vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QBF (Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QBF is a Blockchain fund actively managed by Innovator, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QBF returned -35.86% vs 2.93% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. QBF charges 0.79%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

QBF vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly (QBF) 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, QBF achieves a -23.63% return, which is significantly lower than BAMU's 1.06% return.

QBF

• 1D: -2.17%
• 1M: -14.35%
• YTD: -23.63%
• 6M: -27.96%
• 1Y: -35.86%
• 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)

QBF vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QBF Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly	-23.63%	-14.22%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.06%	2.92%

Correlation

The correlation between QBF and BAMU is -0.02, 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	-0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 7, 2025	-0.02

Return for Risk

QBF vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

QBF

QBF Risk / Return Rank: 1
QBF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
QBF Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
QBF Omega Ratio Rank: 1
QBF Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
QBF Martin Ratio Rank: 1

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.

QBF vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly (QBF) 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.

	QBF	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.37	4.98	-6.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-2.04	8.77	-10.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.78	2.41	-1.63
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.84	24.89	-25.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.48	97.89	-99.37
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QBF vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QBF Sharpe Ratio is -1.37, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QBF 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

	QBF	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-1.37	4.98	-6.35
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.97	4.14	-5.11

Drawdowns

QBF vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QBF drawdown since its inception was -42.92%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QBF and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	QBF	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.92%	-0.36%	-42.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-42.92%	-0.12%	-42.80%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-42.92%	0.00%	-42.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.82%	-0.02%	-16.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	24.20%	0.03%	+24.17%

Volatility

QBF vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly (QBF) has a higher volatility of 7.09% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.07%. This indicates that QBF'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

	QBF	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.09%	0.07%	+7.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.56%	0.43%	+18.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.36%	0.59%	+25.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.53%	0.87%	+27.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.53%	0.87%	+27.66%

QBF vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

QBF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

QBF vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

QBF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.81%, 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%
QBF Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly	1.81%	1.38%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QBF and BAMU in my portfolio?

QBF and BAMU have a correlation of -0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QBF or BAMU?

QBF has higher volatility (7.09%) compared to BAMU (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QBF dropped -42.92% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, QBF or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, BAMU leads with 2.93% vs -35.86% for QBF. On fees, QBF is cheaper at 0.79% 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, QBF or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, BAMU has performed better with a 2.93% return vs -35.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QBF or BAMU?

QBF is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.06%, compared with 1.81% for QBF.

What is the main difference between QBF and BAMU?

QBF is categorized as Blockchain, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for QBF and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.98 vs -1.37), 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.