QQQH vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QQQH (NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QQQH is a Nasdaq-100 fund managed by Neos, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Over the past year, QQQH returned 16.40% vs 2.87% for BAMU. At a 0.00 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QQQH charges 0.68%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

QQQH vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF (QQQH) 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, QQQH achieves a 5.59% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.

QQQH

• 1D: -1.95%
• 1M: -0.51%
• YTD: 5.59%
• 6M: 4.45%
• 1Y: 16.40%
• 3Y*: 18.22%
• 5Y*: 8.22%
• 10Y*: —

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)

QQQH vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QQQH NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF	5.59%	14.17%	25.98%	13.76%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQH 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	0.00

The correlation between QQQH and BAMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.19 (1 year) to 0.00 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

QQQH vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQQH

QQQH Risk / Return Rank: 49
QQQH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
QQQH Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
QQQH Omega Ratio Rank: 47
QQQH Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
QQQH Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

QQQH vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF (QQQH) 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.

	QQQH	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.54	4.94	-3.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.09	8.71	-6.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	2.41	-1.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.37	24.37	-22.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.89	96.52	-86.63

QQQH vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQH Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQH 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

QQQH vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQH drawdown since its inception was -31.24%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQH and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQH	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.24%	-0.36%	-30.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.96%	-0.12%	-6.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.18%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.24%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.17%	0.00%	-2.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.22%	-0.02%	-8.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.66%	0.03%	+1.63%

Volatility

QQQH vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF (QQQH) has a higher volatility of 5.21% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that QQQH'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

	QQQH	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.21%	0.09%	+5.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.58%	0.39%	+8.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.75%	0.58%	+10.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.35%	0.87%	+12.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.46%	0.87%	+12.59%

QQQH vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQQH has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQQH vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

QQQH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.93%, more than BAMU's 3.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QQQH NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF	8.93%	8.86%	7.53%	7.18%	9.05%	7.77%	7.48%	0.65%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQQH and BAMU in my portfolio?

QQQH 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, QQQH or BAMU?

QQQH has higher volatility (5.21%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQQH dropped -31.24% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, QQQH or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, QQQH leads with 16.40% vs 2.87% for BAMU. On fees, QQQH is cheaper at 0.68% 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, QQQH or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, QQQH has performed better with a 16.40% return vs 2.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQQH or BAMU?

QQQH is cheaper with a 0.68% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

QQQH has the higher dividend yield at 8.93%, compared with 3.05% for BAMU.

What is the main difference between QQQH and BAMU?

QQQH is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Neos and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for QQQH and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.94 vs 1.54), 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.