QRMI vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QRMI (Global X NASDAQ 100 Risk Managed Income ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QRMI is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Global X, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QRMI returned 9.91% vs 2.87% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. QRMI charges 0.60%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

QRMI vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X NASDAQ 100 Risk Managed Income ETF (QRMI) 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, QRMI achieves a 2.46% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.

QRMI

• 1D: -0.85%
• 1M: 0.75%
• YTD: 2.46%
• 6M: 2.38%
• 1Y: 9.91%
• 3Y*: 7.36%
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

QRMI vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QRMI Global X NASDAQ 100 Risk Managed Income ETF	2.46%	3.76%	14.72%	4.01%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between QRMI and BAMU is -0.20, 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	-0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	-0.04

The correlation between QRMI and BAMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.20 (1 year) to -0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

QRMI vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

QRMI

QRMI Risk / Return Rank: 51
QRMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
QRMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
QRMI Omega Ratio Rank: 58
QRMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
QRMI Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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.

QRMI vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X NASDAQ 100 Risk Managed Income ETF (QRMI) 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.

	QRMI	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.67	4.94	-3.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.26	8.71	-6.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	2.41	-1.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.97	24.37	-22.40
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.61	96.52	-87.91

QRMI vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QRMI Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QRMI 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

QRMI vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QRMI drawdown since its inception was -20.95%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QRMI and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	QRMI	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.95%	-0.36%	-20.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.04%	-0.12%	-4.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.43%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.85%	0.00%	-0.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.90%	-0.02%	-7.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.15%	0.03%	+1.12%

Volatility

QRMI vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Global X NASDAQ 100 Risk Managed Income ETF (QRMI) has a higher volatility of 2.24% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that QRMI'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

	QRMI	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.24%	0.09%	+2.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.92%	0.39%	+4.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.98%	0.58%	+5.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.35%	0.87%	+7.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.35%	0.87%	+7.48%

QRMI vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

QRMI has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

QRMI vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

QRMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.33%, more than BAMU's 3.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%
QRMI Global X NASDAQ 100 Risk Managed Income ETF	12.33%	12.28%	11.80%	12.44%	10.65%	3.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QRMI and BAMU in my portfolio?

QRMI and BAMU have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QRMI or BAMU?

QRMI has higher volatility (2.24%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QRMI dropped -20.95% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, QRMI or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, QRMI leads with 9.91% vs 2.87% for BAMU. On fees, QRMI is cheaper at 0.60% 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, QRMI or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, QRMI has performed better with a 9.91% return vs 2.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QRMI or BAMU?

QRMI is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

QRMI has the higher dividend yield at 12.33%, compared with 3.05% for BAMU.

What is the main difference between QRMI and BAMU?

QRMI is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QRMI and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.94 vs 1.67), 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.