QHDG vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QHDG (Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QHDG is a Equity Hedged fund actively managed by Innovator, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QHDG returned 11.61% vs 2.93% for BAMU. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QHDG charges 0.79%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

QHDG vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF (QHDG) and Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with QHDG having a 1.03% return and BAMU slightly higher at 1.06%.

QHDG

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: 0.89%
• YTD: 1.03%
• 6M: 0.25%
• 1Y: 11.61%
• 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)

QHDG vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QHDG Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF	1.03%	12.13%	6.35%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.06%	3.21%	1.39%

Correlation

The correlation between QHDG 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 Aug 21, 2024	0.03

The correlation between QHDG and BAMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to 0.03 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QHDG vs. BAMU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QHDG	BAMU
Technology	53.8%	-
Communication Services	15.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	12.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	-
Healthcare	4.2%	-
Industrials	2.8%	-
Utilities	1.4%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	-
Energy	0.6%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	98.8%
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

QHDG vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

QHDG

QHDG Risk / Return Rank: 37
QHDG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
QHDG Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
QHDG Omega Ratio Rank: 41
QHDG Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
QHDG Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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.

QHDG vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF (QHDG) 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.

	QHDG	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.33	4.98	-3.65
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.81	8.77	-6.96
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	2.41	-1.15
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.67	24.89	-23.22
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.69	97.89	-92.20
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QHDG vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QHDG Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QHDG 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

	QHDG	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.33	4.98	-3.65
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.89	4.14	-3.25

Drawdowns

QHDG vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QHDG drawdown since its inception was -15.29%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QHDG and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	QHDG	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.29%	-0.36%	-14.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.00%	-0.12%	-6.88%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.00%	0.00%	-1.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.15%	-0.02%	-2.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.05%	0.03%	+2.02%

Volatility

QHDG vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF (QHDG) has a higher volatility of 0.26% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.07%. This indicates that QHDG'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

	QHDG	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.26%	0.07%	+0.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.54%	0.43%	+6.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.79%	0.59%	+8.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.44%	0.87%	+11.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.44%	0.87%	+11.57%

QHDG vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

QHDG vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

QHDG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BAMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.06%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.06%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%
QHDG Innovator Hedged Nasdaq-100 ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.02%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QHDG and BAMU in my portfolio?

QHDG 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, QHDG or BAMU?

QHDG has higher volatility (0.26%) compared to BAMU (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QHDG dropped -15.29% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, QHDG or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, QHDG leads with 11.61% vs 2.93% for BAMU. On fees, QHDG 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, QHDG or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, QHDG has performed better with a 11.61% return vs 2.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QHDG or BAMU?

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

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.06%, compared with 0.00% for QHDG.

What is the main difference between QHDG and BAMU?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.98 vs 1.33), 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.