QEMM vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QEMM (SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QEMM is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM Factor Mix A-Series (USD), while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. QEMM is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. Over the past year, QEMM returned 35.60% vs 2.87% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.08, they often move in opposite directions. QEMM charges 0.30%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

QEMM vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF (QEMM) 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, QEMM achieves a 21.11% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.

QEMM

• 1D: -3.77%
• 1M: 1.15%
• YTD: 21.11%
• 6M: 21.59%
• 1Y: 35.60%
• 3Y*: 18.42%
• 5Y*: 7.03%
• 10Y*: 8.86%

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)

QEMM vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QEMM SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF	21.11%	21.92%	4.98%	9.06%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between QEMM and BAMU is -0.12, 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	-0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	-0.08

Return for Risk

QEMM vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

QEMM

QEMM Risk / Return Rank: 66
QEMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
QEMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
QEMM Omega Ratio Rank: 67
QEMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
QEMM Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

QEMM vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF (QEMM) 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.

	QEMM	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.94	4.94	-3.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.57	8.71	-6.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	2.41	-1.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.44	24.37	-20.94
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.14	96.52	-84.38

QEMM vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QEMM Sharpe Ratio is 1.94, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QEMM 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

QEMM vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QEMM drawdown since its inception was -36.89%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QEMM and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	QEMM	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.89%	-0.36%	-36.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.40%	-0.12%	-10.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.03%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.19%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.89%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.06%	0.00%	-4.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.60%	-0.02%	-10.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.94%	0.03%	+2.91%

Volatility

QEMM vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF (QEMM) has a higher volatility of 9.31% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that QEMM'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

	QEMM	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.31%	0.09%	+9.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.80%	0.39%	+16.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.46%	0.58%	+17.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.64%	0.87%	+14.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.98%	0.87%	+16.11%

QEMM vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

QEMM has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

QEMM vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

QEMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.46%, more than BAMU's 3.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QEMM SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF	4.46%	4.90%	5.17%	4.88%	4.07%	2.35%	2.48%	3.05%	2.86%	2.11%	2.03%	2.14%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QEMM and BAMU in my portfolio?

QEMM and BAMU have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QEMM or BAMU?

QEMM has higher volatility (9.31%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QEMM dropped -36.89% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, QEMM or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, QEMM leads with 35.60% vs 2.87% for BAMU. On fees, QEMM is cheaper at 0.30% 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, QEMM or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, QEMM has performed better with a 35.60% return vs 2.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QEMM or BAMU?

QEMM is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

QEMM has the higher dividend yield at 4.46%, compared with 3.05% for BAMU.

What is the main difference between QEMM and BAMU?

QEMM is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for QEMM and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.94 vs 1.94), 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.