RFFC vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RFFC (ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RFFC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by SS&C, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RFFC returned 27.11% vs 2.87% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. RFFC charges 0.48%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

RFFC vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) 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, RFFC achieves a 10.13% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.

RFFC

• 1D: -0.84%
• 1M: 0.61%
• YTD: 10.13%
• 6M: 9.43%
• 1Y: 27.11%
• 3Y*: 20.79%
• 5Y*: 11.91%
• 10Y*: 12.66%

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)

RFFC vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF	10.13%	16.83%	23.51%	12.07%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between RFFC and BAMU is -0.11, 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	-0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	-0.01

The correlation between RFFC and BAMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.11 (1 year) to -0.01 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

RFFC vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFFC

RFFC Risk / Return Rank: 72
RFFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
RFFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
RFFC Omega Ratio Rank: 72
RFFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
RFFC Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

RFFC vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) 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.

	RFFC	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.19	4.94	-2.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.06	8.71	-5.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	2.41	-1.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.94	24.37	-21.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.37	96.52	-83.15

RFFC vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFFC Sharpe Ratio is 2.19, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFFC 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

RFFC vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFFC drawdown since its inception was -36.26%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFFC and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFFC	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.26%	-0.36%	-35.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.25%	-0.12%	-9.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.45%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.29%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.26%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.55%	0.00%	-1.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.00%	-0.02%	-4.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.03%	0.03%	+2.00%

Volatility

RFFC vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) has a higher volatility of 4.25% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that RFFC'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

	RFFC	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.25%	0.09%	+4.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.88%	0.39%	+9.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.45%	0.58%	+11.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.33%	0.87%	+15.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.01%	0.87%	+17.14%

RFFC vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFFC has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFFC vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

RFFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.64%, less than BAMU's 3.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF	0.64%	0.78%	1.05%	1.35%	1.41%	0.71%	1.79%	1.34%	1.36%	0.93%	0.66%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RFFC and BAMU in my portfolio?

RFFC and BAMU have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RFFC or BAMU?

RFFC has higher volatility (4.25%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFFC dropped -36.26% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, RFFC or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, RFFC leads with 27.11% vs 2.87% for BAMU. On fees, RFFC is cheaper at 0.48% 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, RFFC or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, RFFC has performed better with a 27.11% return vs 2.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RFFC or BAMU?

RFFC is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 0.64% for RFFC.

What is the main difference between RFFC and BAMU?

RFFC is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: SS&C and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for RFFC and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.94 vs 2.19), 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.