PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ZALT vs. BAMU
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ZALT vs. BAMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (ZALT) and Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZALT achieves a 3.61% return, which is significantly higher than BAMU's 1.06% return.


ZALT

1D
-0.04%
1M
0.94%
YTD
3.61%
6M
3.99%
1Y
10.35%
3Y*
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)

ZALT vs. BAMU - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
ZALT
Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly
3.61%9.44%11.92%3.95%
BAMU
Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF
1.06%3.21%4.14%1.12%

Correlation

The correlation between ZALT and BAMU is -0.11, 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

-0.11

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 3, 2023

-0.01

ZALT vs. BAMU - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ZALT
BAMU

Technology

36.2%

-

Financial Services

11.9%
98.8%

Communication Services

10.9%

-

Consumer Cyclical

10.1%

-

Healthcare

8.4%

-

Industrials

8.1%

-

Consumer Defensive

4.9%

-

Energy

3.5%

-

Utilities

2.3%

-

Real Estate

1.9%

-

Basic Materials

1.8%

-

Technology

ZALT
36.2%
BAMU

-

Financial Services

ZALT
11.9%
BAMU
98.8%

Communication Services

ZALT
10.9%
BAMU

-

Consumer Cyclical

ZALT
10.1%
BAMU

-

Healthcare

ZALT
8.4%
BAMU

-

Industrials

ZALT
8.1%
BAMU

-

Consumer Defensive

ZALT
4.9%
BAMU

-

Energy

ZALT
3.5%
BAMU

-

Utilities

ZALT
2.3%
BAMU

-

Real Estate

ZALT
1.9%
BAMU

-

Basic Materials

ZALT
1.8%
BAMU

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

ZALT vs. BAMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZALT
ZALT Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
ZALT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7777
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZALT Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZALT Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
ZALT Calmar Ratio Rank: 9292
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZALT Martin Ratio Rank: 9191
Martin Ratio Rank

BAMU
BAMU Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
BAMU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BAMU Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
BAMU Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
BAMU Calmar Ratio Rank: 9999
Calmar Ratio Rank
BAMU Martin Ratio Rank: 9999
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

ZALT vs. BAMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (ZALT) 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.


ZALTBAMUDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.48

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-5.23

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.53

2.41

-0.88

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

6.08

24.89

-18.81

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

21.69

97.89

-76.20

ZALT vs. BAMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZALT Sharpe Ratio is 2.50, which is lower than the BAMU Sharpe Ratio of 4.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZALT 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


ZALTBAMUDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.50

4.98

-2.48

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.73

4.14

-2.42

Drawdowns

ZALT vs. BAMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZALT drawdown since its inception was -8.19%, which is greater than BAMU's maximum drawdown of -0.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZALT and BAMU.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ZALTBAMUDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-8.19%

-0.36%

-7.83%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-1.71%

-0.12%

-1.59%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.04%

0.00%

-0.04%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.48%

-0.02%

-0.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.48%

0.03%

+0.45%

Volatility

ZALT vs. BAMU - Volatility Comparison

Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (ZALT) has a higher volatility of 0.39% compared to Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) at 0.07%. This indicates that ZALT'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ZALTBAMUDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.39%

0.07%

+0.32%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.97%

0.43%

+2.54%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.15%

0.59%

+3.56%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

6.38%

0.87%

+5.51%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

6.38%

0.87%

+5.51%

ZALT vs. BAMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZALT has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than BAMU's 1.09% expense ratio.


Dividends

ZALT vs. BAMU - Dividend Comparison

ZALT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BAMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.06%.


PositionTTM202520242023
BAMU
Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF
3.06%3.20%3.97%0.84%
ZALT
Innovator U.S. Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


ZALT and BAMU have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ZALT has higher volatility (0.39%) compared to BAMU (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZALT dropped -8.19% vs BAMU's -0.36%.

On 1-year performance, ZALT leads with 10.35% vs 2.93% for BAMU. On fees, ZALT is cheaper at 0.69% 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.

Over the 1-year period, ZALT has performed better with a 10.35% return vs 2.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ZALT is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for BAMU.

BAMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.06%, compared with 0.00% for ZALT.

ZALT is categorized as Options Trading, while BAMU is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Brookstone. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for ZALT and 1.09% for BAMU.

BAMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.98 vs 2.50), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ZALT and BAMU

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer