QLD vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QLD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%), while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. QLD is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. Over the past year, QLD returned 66.80% vs 2.87% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. QLD charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

QLD vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) 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, QLD achieves a 29.58% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.

QLD

• 1D: -6.61%
• 1M: -2.02%
• YTD: 29.58%
• 6M: 26.13%
• 1Y: 66.80%
• 3Y*: 43.61%
• 5Y*: 21.41%
• 10Y*: 36.27%

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)

QLD vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	29.58%	30.36%	42.82%	31.10%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between QLD and BAMU is -0.19, 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	-0.19
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	-0.01

The correlation between QLD and BAMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.19 (1 year) to -0.01 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

QLD vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLD

QLD Risk / Return Rank: 53
QLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
QLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
QLD Omega Ratio Rank: 51
QLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
QLD Martin Ratio Rank: 54

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.

QLD vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) 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.

	QLD	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.88	4.94	-3.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.33	8.71	-6.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	2.41	-1.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.67	24.37	-21.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.05	96.52	-87.48

QLD vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLD Sharpe Ratio is 1.88, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLD 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

QLD vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLD drawdown since its inception was -83.13%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLD and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLD	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-83.13%	-0.36%	-82.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.13%	-0.12%	-25.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.29%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-63.68%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-63.68%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.26%	0.00%	-9.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.14%	-0.02%	-18.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.40%	0.03%	+7.37%

Volatility

QLD vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a higher volatility of 18.22% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that QLD'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

	QLD	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	18.22%	0.09%	+18.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.95%	0.39%	+28.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.77%	0.58%	+35.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	45.34%	0.87%	+44.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	44.80%	0.87%	+43.93%

QLD vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

QLD vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less 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%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	0.13%	0.17%	0.25%	0.33%	0.31%	0.00%	0.00%	0.13%	0.06%	0.02%	0.21%	0.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QLD and BAMU in my portfolio?

QLD and BAMU have a correlation of -0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QLD or BAMU?

QLD has higher volatility (18.22%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLD dropped -83.13% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, QLD or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, QLD leads with 66.80% vs 2.87% for BAMU. On fees, QLD is cheaper at 0.95% 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, QLD or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, QLD has performed better with a 66.80% return vs 2.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLD or BAMU?

QLD is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 0.13% for QLD.

What is the main difference between QLD and BAMU?

QLD is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for QLD and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.94 vs 1.88), 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.