RWEM vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RWEM (Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RWEM is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the FT Wilshire Emerging Large NxtGen Index, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. RWEM is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. Over the past year, RWEM returned 56.82% vs 2.93% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. RWEM charges 0.52%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

RWEM vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF (RWEM) 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, RWEM achieves a 26.61% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.06% return.

RWEM

• 1D: 1.08%
• 1M: 12.70%
• YTD: 26.61%
• 6M: 37.26%
• 1Y: 56.82%
• 3Y*: 25.41%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.20%
• YTD: 1.06%
• 6M: 1.25%
• 1Y: 2.93%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RWEM vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RWEM Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF	26.61%	28.17%	7.24%	11.04%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.06%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between RWEM and BAMU is -0.06, 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	-0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2023	-0.04

RWEM vs. BAMU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RWEM	BAMU
Technology	36.8%	-
Financial Services	23.6%	98.8%
Basic Materials	7.9%	-
Industrials	6.5%	-
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	-
Communication Services	4.5%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.5%	-
Energy	4.3%	-
Utilities	2.5%	-
Real Estate	1.8%	-
Healthcare	1.4%	-

Return for Risk

RWEM vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

RWEM

RWEM Risk / Return Rank: 60
RWEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
RWEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
RWEM Omega Ratio Rank: 57
RWEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
RWEM Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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.

RWEM vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF (RWEM) 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.

	RWEM	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	4.98	-3.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.42	8.77	-6.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	2.41	-1.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.71	24.89	-21.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.99	97.89	-85.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RWEM vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWEM 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

	RWEM	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.79	4.98	-3.18
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	4.14	-3.55

Drawdowns

RWEM vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWEM drawdown since its inception was -26.92%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWEM and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWEM	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.92%	-0.36%	-26.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.39%	-0.12%	-15.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.56%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.64%	-0.02%	-9.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.75%	0.03%	+4.72%

Volatility

RWEM vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF (RWEM) has a higher volatility of 8.57% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.07%. This indicates that RWEM'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

	RWEM	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.57%	0.07%	+8.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.47%	0.43%	+29.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.82%	0.59%	+31.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.36%	0.87%	+20.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.36%	0.87%	+20.49%

RWEM vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWEM has a 0.52% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWEM vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

RWEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.70%, less than BAMU's 3.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.06%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%
RWEM Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.70%	2.15%	3.59%	1.60%	5.59%	0.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RWEM and BAMU in my portfolio?

RWEM and BAMU have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RWEM or BAMU?

RWEM has higher volatility (8.57%) compared to BAMU (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWEM dropped -26.92% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, RWEM or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, RWEM leads with 56.82% vs 2.93% for BAMU. On fees, RWEM is cheaper at 0.52% 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, RWEM or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, RWEM has performed better with a 56.82% return vs 2.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWEM or BAMU?

RWEM is cheaper with a 0.52% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.06%, compared with 1.70% for RWEM.

What is the main difference between RWEM and BAMU?

RWEM is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Rayliant and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.52% for RWEM and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.98 vs 1.79), 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.