XCEM vs. BAMU

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

XCEM (Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF) and BAMU (Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XCEM is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index, while BAMU is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Brookstone. XCEM is passively managed, while BAMU is actively managed. Over the past year, XCEM returned 73.75% vs 2.91% for BAMU. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. XCEM charges 0.16%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for BAMU.

Performance

XCEM vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) 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, XCEM achieves a 43.27% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.18% return.

XCEM

• 1D: 0.26%
• 1M: 11.26%
• YTD: 43.27%
• 6M: 46.87%
• 1Y: 73.75%
• 3Y*: 27.69%
• 5Y*: 13.15%
• 10Y*: 13.36%

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)

XCEM vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	43.27%	34.05%	0.42%	12.60%
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	1.18%	3.21%	4.14%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between XCEM and BAMU is -0.14, 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	-0.14
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	-0.06

Return for Risk

XCEM vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

XCEM

XCEM Risk / Return Rank: 90
XCEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
XCEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
XCEM Omega Ratio Rank: 91
XCEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
XCEM Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

XCEM vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) 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.

	XCEM	BAMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.17	5.01	-1.84
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.88	8.84	-4.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	2.43	-0.85
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.13	24.72	-19.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.88	97.90	-78.02

XCEM vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XCEM Sharpe Ratio is 3.17, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XCEM 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

XCEM vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XCEM drawdown since its inception was -41.24%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XCEM and BAMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	XCEM	BAMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.24%	-0.36%	-40.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.46%	-0.12%	-14.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.92%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.57%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.24%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.57%	-0.02%	-8.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.72%	0.03%	+3.69%

Volatility

XCEM vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) has a higher volatility of 12.12% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.09%. This indicates that XCEM'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

	XCEM	BAMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.12%	0.09%	+12.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.53%	0.40%	+21.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.42%	0.58%	+22.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.38%	0.87%	+17.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.91%	0.87%	+19.04%

XCEM vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

XCEM has a 0.16% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

XCEM vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

XCEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.27%, less than BAMU's 3.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BAMU Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF	3.05%	3.20%	3.97%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	2.27%	3.25%	2.76%	1.22%	2.42%	1.94%	1.63%	2.11%	2.70%	9.56%	1.24%	2.63%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XCEM and BAMU in my portfolio?

XCEM and BAMU have a correlation of -0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XCEM or BAMU?

XCEM has higher volatility (12.12%) compared to BAMU (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XCEM dropped -41.24% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

Which ETF is better, XCEM or BAMU?

On 1-year performance, XCEM leads with 73.75% vs 2.91% for BAMU. On fees, XCEM is cheaper at 0.16% 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, XCEM or BAMU?

Over the 1-year period, XCEM has performed better with a 73.75% return vs 2.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XCEM or BAMU?

XCEM is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

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

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 2.27% for XCEM.

What is the main difference between XCEM and BAMU?

XCEM is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Ameriprise Financial and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.16% for XCEM and 1.09% for BAMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 3.17), 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.