UCYB vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

UCYB (ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UCYB is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index (200%), while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. UCYB is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. Over the past year, UCYB returned 20.14% vs 2.91% for BAMU. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UCYB charges 0.97%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

UCYB vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity (UCYB) 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, UCYB achieves a 27.17% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.

UCYB

• 1D: -2.39%
• 1M: -3.48%
• YTD: 27.17%
• 6M: 20.29%
• 1Y: 20.14%
• 3Y*: 36.00%
• 5Y*: 11.24%
• 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)

UCYB vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
UCYB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity	27.17%	9.41%	28.84%	39.66%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between UCYB and BAMU is -0.07, 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	-0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	0.02

Return for Risk

UCYB vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

UCYB

UCYB Risk / Return Rank: 15
UCYB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
UCYB Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
UCYB Omega Ratio Rank: 17
UCYB Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
UCYB Martin Ratio Rank: 13

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.

UCYB vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity (UCYB) 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.

	UCYB	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.40	5.01	-4.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.88	8.84	-7.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	2.43	-1.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.47	24.72	-24.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.02	97.90	-96.87

UCYB vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UCYB Sharpe Ratio is 0.40, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UCYB 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

UCYB vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UCYB drawdown since its inception was -62.69%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UCYB and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	UCYB	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.69%	-0.36%	-62.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-43.04%	-0.12%	-42.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.04%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-62.69%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.58%	0.00%	-22.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-27.39%	-0.02%	-27.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	19.77%	0.03%	+19.74%

Volatility

UCYB vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity (UCYB) has a higher volatility of 24.94% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that UCYB'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

	UCYB	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	24.94%	0.09%	+24.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	43.79%	0.40%	+43.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.16%	0.58%	+50.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	50.23%	0.87%	+49.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	49.76%	0.87%	+48.89%

UCYB vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

UCYB has a 0.97% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

UCYB vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

UCYB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.70%, less than BAMU's 3.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%
UCYB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity	1.70%	1.90%	2.16%	0.56%	0.00%	0.91%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UCYB and BAMU in my portfolio?

UCYB and BAMU have a correlation of -0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UCYB or BAMU?

UCYB has higher volatility (24.94%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UCYB dropped -62.69% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, UCYB or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, UCYB leads with 20.14% vs 2.91% for BAMU. On fees, UCYB is cheaper at 0.97% 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, UCYB or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, UCYB has performed better with a 20.14% return vs 2.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UCYB or BAMU?

UCYB is cheaper with a 0.97% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 1.70% for UCYB.

What is the main difference between UCYB and BAMU?

UCYB is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.97% for UCYB and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 0.40), 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.