TMFC vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

TMFC (Motley Fool 100 Index ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TMFC is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Motley Fool 100 Index, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. TMFC is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. Over the past year, TMFC returned 23.51% vs 2.91% for BAMU. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TMFC charges 0.50%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

TMFC vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) 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, TMFC achieves a 5.63% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.

TMFC

• 1D: -0.84%
• 1M: -2.18%
• YTD: 5.63%
• 6M: 5.27%
• 1Y: 23.51%
• 3Y*: 24.09%
• 5Y*: 14.51%
• 10Y*: —

BAMU

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.16%
• YTD: 1.18%
• 6M: 1.23%
• 1Y: 2.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TMFC vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
TMFC Motley Fool 100 Index ETF	5.63%	19.55%	35.17%	14.47%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between TMFC and BAMU is -0.17, 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	-0.17
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	0.01

The correlation between TMFC and BAMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.17 (1 year) to 0.01 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

TMFC vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMFC

TMFC Risk / Return Rank: 45
TMFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
TMFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
TMFC Omega Ratio Rank: 47
TMFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
TMFC Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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.

TMFC vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) 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.

	TMFC	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	5.01	-3.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.28	8.84	-6.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	2.43	-1.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.87	24.72	-22.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.78	97.90	-91.12

TMFC vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMFC Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMFC 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

TMFC vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMFC drawdown since its inception was -33.06%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFC and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMFC	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.06%	-0.36%	-32.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.64%	-0.12%	-12.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.06%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.06%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.67%	0.00%	-3.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.75%	-0.02%	-6.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.48%	0.03%	+3.45%

Volatility

TMFC vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) has a higher volatility of 5.31% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that TMFC'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

	TMFC	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.31%	0.09%	+5.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.15%	0.40%	+10.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.24%	0.58%	+13.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.48%	0.87%	+19.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.00%	0.87%	+21.13%

TMFC vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMFC has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMFC vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

TMFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.14%, less than BAMU's 3.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TMFC Motley Fool 100 Index ETF	0.14%	0.14%	0.40%	0.26%	0.27%	0.23%	0.42%	0.50%	0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMFC and BAMU in my portfolio?

TMFC and BAMU have a correlation of -0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TMFC or BAMU?

TMFC has higher volatility (5.31%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFC dropped -33.06% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, TMFC or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, TMFC leads with 23.51% vs 2.91% for BAMU. On fees, TMFC is cheaper at 0.50% 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, TMFC or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, TMFC has performed better with a 23.51% return vs 2.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMFC or BAMU?

TMFC is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 0.14% for TMFC.

What is the main difference between TMFC and BAMU?

TMFC is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for TMFC and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 1.66), 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.