RSMV vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

RSMV (Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RSMV is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Teucrium, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RSMV returned 25.51% vs 2.95% for BAMU. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RSMV charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

RSMV vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF (RSMV) 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, RSMV achieves a 9.21% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.08% return.

RSMV

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: 6.55%
• YTD: 9.21%
• 6M: 9.78%
• 1Y: 25.51%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.22%
• YTD: 1.08%
• 6M: 1.31%
• 1Y: 2.95%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RSMV vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RSMV Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF	9.21%	11.08%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.08%	3.08%

Correlation

The correlation between RSMV and BAMU is -0.04, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 15, 2025	0.02

RSMV vs. BAMU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RSMV	BAMU
Technology	34.7%	-
Financial Services	33.9%	98.8%
Consumer Defensive	9.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	5.4%	-
Communication Services	5.1%	-
Energy	5.0%	-
Utilities	2.8%	-
Industrials	2.8%	-
Basic Materials	2.6%	-
Healthcare	2.5%	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

RSMV vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSMV

RSMV Risk / Return Rank: 68
RSMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
RSMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
RSMV Omega Ratio Rank: 63
RSMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
RSMV Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

RSMV vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF (RSMV) 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.

	RSMV	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.15	5.01	-2.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.00	8.83	-5.83
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	2.42	-1.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.52	25.06	-21.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.47	98.57	-85.10
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RSMV vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSMV Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSMV 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

	RSMV	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.15	5.01	-2.87
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.04	4.15	-3.11

Drawdowns

RSMV vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSMV drawdown since its inception was -17.58%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSMV and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSMV	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.58%	-0.36%	-17.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.27%	-0.12%	-7.15%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.58%	0.00%	-0.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.96%	-0.02%	-3.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.90%	0.03%	+1.87%

Volatility

RSMV vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF (RSMV) has a higher volatility of 4.39% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.07%. This indicates that RSMV'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

	RSMV	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.39%	0.07%	+4.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.67%	0.43%	+9.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.94%	0.59%	+11.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.52%	0.87%	+13.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.52%	0.87%	+13.65%

RSMV vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

RSMV vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

RSMV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.92%, 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%
RSMV Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF	0.92%	1.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RSMV and BAMU in my portfolio?

RSMV and BAMU have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RSMV or BAMU?

RSMV has higher volatility (4.39%) compared to BAMU (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSMV dropped -17.58% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, RSMV or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, RSMV leads with 25.51% vs 2.95% for BAMU. On fees, RSMV is cheaper at 0.95% 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, RSMV or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, RSMV has performed better with a 25.51% return vs 2.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSMV or BAMU?

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

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.06%, compared with 0.92% for RSMV.

What is the main difference between RSMV and BAMU?

RSMV is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Teucrium and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for RSMV and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 2.15), 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.