QULL vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QULL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QULL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. QULL is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. Over the past year, QULL returned 37.24% vs 2.87% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. QULL charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

QULL vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) 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, QULL achieves a 12.45% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.

QULL

• 1D: -2.24%
• 1M: -1.05%
• YTD: 12.45%
• 6M: 10.61%
• 1Y: 37.24%
• 3Y*: 30.07%
• 5Y*: 15.31%
• 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)

QULL vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QULL ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN	12.45%	17.61%	38.03%	24.95%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between QULL and BAMU is -0.13, 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	-0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	-0.01

The correlation between QULL and BAMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.13 (1 year) to -0.01 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

QULL vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

QULL

QULL Risk / Return Rank: 47
QULL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
QULL Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
QULL Omega Ratio Rank: 43
QULL Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
QULL Martin Ratio Rank: 55

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.

QULL vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) 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.

	QULL	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.52	4.94	-3.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.14	8.71	-6.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	2.41	-1.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.03	24.37	-22.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.00	96.52	-87.52

QULL vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QULL Sharpe Ratio is 1.52, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QULL 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

QULL vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QULL drawdown since its inception was -51.83%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QULL and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	QULL	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.83%	-0.36%	-51.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.43%	-0.12%	-18.31%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-36.82%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-51.83%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.03%	0.00%	-5.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.93%	-0.02%	-13.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.15%	0.03%	+4.12%

Volatility

QULL vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) has a higher volatility of 6.62% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that QULL'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

	QULL	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.62%	0.09%	+6.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.37%	0.39%	+18.98%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.70%	0.58%	+24.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	35.68%	0.87%	+34.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.06%	0.87%	+34.19%

QULL vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

QULL vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

QULL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BAMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.05%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%
QULL ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QULL and BAMU in my portfolio?

QULL and BAMU have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QULL or BAMU?

QULL has higher volatility (6.62%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QULL dropped -51.83% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, QULL or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, QULL leads with 37.24% vs 2.87% for BAMU. On fees, QULL 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, QULL or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, QULL has performed better with a 37.24% return vs 2.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QULL or BAMU?

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

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 0.00% for QULL.

What is the main difference between QULL and BAMU?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.94 vs 1.52), 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.