QCML vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

QCML (GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QCML is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM), while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. QCML is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. Over the past year, QCML returned 61.74% vs 2.91% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. QCML charges 1.50%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

QCML vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML) 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, QCML achieves a 37.20% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.

QCML

• 1D: -3.63%
• 1M: -18.23%
• YTD: 37.20%
• 6M: 32.11%
• 1Y: 61.74%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.16%
• YTD: 1.18%
• 6M: 1.23%
• 1Y: 2.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QCML vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QCML GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF	37.20%	-16.71%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	2.78%

Correlation

The correlation between QCML and BAMU is -0.07, 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	-0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	-0.02

Return for Risk

QCML vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCML

QCML Risk / Return Rank: 25
QCML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
QCML Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
QCML Omega Ratio Rank: 33
QCML Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
QCML Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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.

QCML vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	QCML	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.62	5.01	-4.38
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.54	8.84	-7.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	2.43	-1.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.06	24.72	-23.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.16	97.90	-95.74

QCML vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCML Sharpe Ratio is 0.62, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCML 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

QCML vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCML drawdown since its inception was -59.13%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCML and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCML	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.13%	-0.36%	-58.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-58.72%	-0.12%	-58.60%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.58%	0.00%	-25.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.94%	-0.02%	-28.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	28.67%	0.03%	+28.64%

Volatility

QCML vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML) has a higher volatility of 55.13% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that QCML'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

	QCML	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	55.13%	0.09%	+55.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	86.76%	0.40%	+86.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	99.62%	0.58%	+99.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	98.92%	0.87%	+98.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	98.92%	0.87%	+98.05%

QCML vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCML has a 1.50% expense ratio, which is higher than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCML vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

QCML 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%
QCML GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCML and BAMU in my portfolio?

QCML and BAMU have a correlation of -0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QCML or BAMU?

QCML has higher volatility (55.13%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCML dropped -59.13% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, QCML or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, QCML leads with 61.74% vs 2.91% for BAMU. On fees, BAMU is cheaper at 1.09% 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, QCML or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, QCML has performed better with a 61.74% return vs 2.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCML or BAMU?

BAMU is cheaper with a 1.09% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for QCML.

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

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

What is the main difference between QCML and BAMU?

QCML is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 1.50% for QCML and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 0.62), 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.