REMG vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

REMG (Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - REMG is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Russell, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, REMG returned 61.56% vs 2.97% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.12, they often move in opposite directions. REMG charges 0.64%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

REMG vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF (REMG) 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, REMG achieves a 31.09% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.04% return.

REMG

• 1D: 0.64%
• 1M: 11.45%
• YTD: 31.09%
• 6M: 34.21%
• 1Y: 61.56%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.18%
• YTD: 1.04%
• 6M: 1.29%
• 1Y: 2.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

REMG vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
REMG Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF	31.09%	24.09%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.04%	1.89%

Correlation

The correlation between REMG and BAMU is -0.12, 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	-0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 2, 2025	-0.12

REMG vs. BAMU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	REMG	BAMU
Technology	36.6%	-
Financial Services	20.5%	98.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.2%	-
Industrials	7.7%	-
Communication Services	6.3%	-
Basic Materials	6.2%	-
Energy	4.1%	-
Healthcare	2.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.7%	-
Real Estate	1.7%	-
Utilities	1.4%	-

Return for Risk

REMG vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

BAMU

BAMU Risk / Return Rank: 98
BAMU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
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.

REMG vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF (REMG) 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.

	REMG	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.00	5.03	-2.03
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.84	8.89	-5.05
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.54	2.43	-0.89
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	24.96	—
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	—	98.37	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

REMG vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current REMG Sharpe Ratio is 3.00, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 5.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of REMG 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	REMG	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.00	5.03	-2.03
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	3.05	4.14	-1.09

Drawdowns

REMG vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum REMG drawdown since its inception was -14.13%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for REMG and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	REMG	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.13%	-0.36%	-13.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.13%	-0.12%	-14.01%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.94%	-0.02%	-1.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.48%	0.03%	+3.45%

Volatility

REMG vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF (REMG) has a higher volatility of 8.72% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.07%. This indicates that REMG'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

	REMG	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.72%	0.07%	+8.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.86%	0.43%	+17.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.61%	0.59%	+20.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.61%	0.87%	+19.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.61%	0.87%	+19.74%

REMG vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

REMG has a 0.64% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

REMG vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

REMG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.05%, less than BAMU's 3.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.06%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%
REMG Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.05%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both REMG and BAMU in my portfolio?

REMG and BAMU have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, REMG or BAMU?

REMG has higher volatility (8.72%) compared to BAMU (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, REMG dropped -14.13% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, REMG or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, REMG leads with 61.56% vs 2.97% for BAMU. On fees, REMG is cheaper at 0.64% per year. On volatility, BAMU has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, REMG or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, REMG has performed better with a 61.56% return vs 2.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, REMG or BAMU?

REMG is cheaper with a 0.64% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.06%, compared with 1.05% for REMG.

What is the main difference between REMG and BAMU?

REMG is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Russell and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.64% for REMG and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.03 vs 3.00), 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.