RAA vs. BAMA

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

RAA (SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF) and BAMA (Brookstone Active ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RAA returned 17.36% vs 15.56% for BAMA. Their correlation of 0.93 means they have usually moved in the same direction. RAA charges 0.85%/yr vs 1.15%/yr for BAMA.

Performance

RAA vs. BAMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA) and Brookstone Active ETF (BAMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with RAA having a 7.87% return and BAMA slightly lower at 7.85%.

RAA

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: 0.49%
• 6M: 5.16%
• YTD: 7.87%
• 1Y: 17.36%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 14.06%

BAMA

• 1D: 0.90%
• 1M: 0.54%
• 6M: 5.84%
• YTD: 7.85%
• 1Y: 15.56%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.53%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BAMA Brookstone Active ETF	$112.07K	$134.38K	$168.32K
RAA SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF	$1.45M	$1.38M	$1.58M

RAA vs. BAMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RAA SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF	7.87%	11.92%
BAMA Brookstone Active ETF	7.85%	11.26%

Correlation

The correlation between RAA and BAMA is 0.93, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 26, 2025	0.93

The correlation between RAA and BAMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RAA vs. BAMA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

RAA

RAA Risk / Return Rank: 69
RAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
RAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
RAA Omega Ratio Rank: 67
RAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
RAA Martin Ratio Rank: 68

BAMA

BAMA Risk / Return Rank: 58
BAMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
BAMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
BAMA Omega Ratio Rank: 57
BAMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
BAMA Martin Ratio Rank: 64

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

RAA vs. BAMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA) and Brookstone Active ETF (BAMA). 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.

	RAA	BAMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.67	1.49	+0.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.30	2.15	+0.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.27	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.95	2.13	+0.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.78	8.42	+0.36

RAA vs. BAMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RAA Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is comparable to the BAMA Sharpe Ratio of 1.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RAA and BAMA, 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

RAA vs. BAMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RAA drawdown since its inception was -11.96%, roughly equal to the maximum BAMA drawdown of -12.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RAA and BAMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	RAA	BAMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.96%	-12.27%	+0.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.91%	-7.35%	+1.44%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.25%	-1.46%	-1.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.65%	-1.31%	-0.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.98%	1.85%	+0.13%

Volatility

RAA vs. BAMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA) is 2.58%, while Brookstone Active ETF (BAMA) has a volatility of 3.55%. This indicates that RAA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BAMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RAA	BAMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.58%	3.55%	-0.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.12%	9.14%	-1.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.45%	10.51%	-0.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.62%	10.46%	+2.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.62%	10.46%	+2.16%

RAA vs. BAMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

RAA has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMA's 1.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

RAA vs. BAMA - Dividend Comparison

RAA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.13%, more than BAMA's 1.32% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMA Brookstone Active ETF	1.32%	1.54%	1.49%	0.45%
RAA SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF	2.13%	2.14%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RAA and BAMA in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, RAA and BAMA move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, RAA or BAMA?

BAMA has higher volatility (3.55%) compared to RAA (2.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RAA dropped -11.96% vs BAMA's -12.27%.

Which ETF is better, RAA or BAMA?

On 1-year performance, RAA leads with 17.36% vs 15.56% for BAMA. On fees, RAA is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, RAA has been the lower-risk option at 2.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RAA or BAMA?

Over the 1-year period, RAA has performed better with a 17.36% return vs 15.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RAA or BAMA?

RAA is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for BAMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RAA or BAMA?

RAA has the higher dividend yield at 2.13%, compared with 1.32% for BAMA.

What is the main difference between RAA and BAMA?

They also come from different issuers: SMI 3Fourteen and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for RAA and 1.15% for BAMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RAA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.67 vs 1.49), 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.