TBFC vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

TBFC (The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TBFC is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Brinsmere, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, TBFC returned 12.51% vs 2.89% for BAMU. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TBFC charges 0.44%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

TBFC vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) 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, TBFC achieves a 4.59% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.20% return.

TBFC

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.02%
• YTD: 4.59%
• 6M: 4.15%
• 1Y: 12.51%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.18%
• YTD: 1.20%
• 6M: 1.27%
• 1Y: 2.89%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TBFC vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	4.59%	11.38%	8.22%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.20%	3.21%	3.98%

Correlation

The correlation between TBFC 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 Jan 16, 2024	0.03

Return for Risk

TBFC vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

TBFC

TBFC Risk / Return Rank: 62
TBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
TBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
TBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 68
TBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
TBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 61

BAMU

BAMU Risk / Return Rank: 99
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.

TBFC vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) 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.

	TBFC	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.84	4.98	-3.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.58	8.77	-6.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	2.42	-1.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.30	24.55	-22.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.50	97.21	-87.71

TBFC vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TBFC Sharpe Ratio is 1.84, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TBFC 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

TBFC vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBFC drawdown since its inception was -8.89%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TBFC and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBFC	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.89%	-0.36%	-8.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.45%	-0.12%	-5.33%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.35%	0.00%	-1.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.06%	-0.02%	-1.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.32%	0.03%	+1.29%

Volatility

TBFC vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) has a higher volatility of 3.03% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.08%. This indicates that TBFC'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

	TBFC	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.03%	0.08%	+2.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.88%	0.39%	+5.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.87%	0.58%	+6.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.28%	0.86%	+6.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.28%	0.86%	+6.42%

TBFC vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

TBFC has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

TBFC vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

TBFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.41%, less than BAMU's 3.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	2.41%	3.28%	2.98%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBFC and BAMU in my portfolio?

TBFC 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, TBFC or BAMU?

TBFC has higher volatility (3.03%) compared to BAMU (0.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TBFC dropped -8.89% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, TBFC or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, TBFC leads with 12.51% vs 2.89% for BAMU. On fees, TBFC is cheaper at 0.44% per year. On volatility, BAMU has been the lower-risk option at 0.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TBFC or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, TBFC has performed better with a 12.51% return vs 2.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBFC or BAMU?

TBFC is cheaper with a 0.44% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 2.41% for TBFC.

What is the main difference between TBFC and BAMU?

TBFC is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Brinsmere and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for TBFC and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.98 vs 1.84), 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.