BAMA vs QQQ
Brookstone Active ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. QQQ offers more diversification with 108 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BAMA | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.99% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $51M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.33% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 7 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +8.20% | +16.23% | |
| 1Y Return | +14.29% | +26.23% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.52% | +25.75% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +14.78% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 8.9% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -12.3% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Brookstone Asset Management | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 28, 2023 | Mar 10, 1999 |
BAMA vs QQQ Performance
Brookstone Active ETF (BAMA) is a ETF from Brookstone Asset Management and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year BAMA returned +14.29% while QQQ returned +26.23%. Year to date, BAMA is up 8.20% versus a gain of 16.23% for QQQ.
Over three years, BAMA compounded at +15.52% per year against +25.75% for QQQ. Across the full 3-year window we track, BAMA has the edge at +15.52% annualized vs +13.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.6% compared with 8.9% for BAMA. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -12.3% for BAMA and -83.0% for QQQ. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.91. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BAMA charges 0.99% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $99 vs $18 annually, a gap of $81 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BAMA currently yields 1.33% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
BAMA and QQQ share 0 holdings out of 105 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BAMA or QQQ?
BAMA has an expense ratio of 0.99% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $81 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BAMA or QQQ?
Over the past year BAMA returned +14.29% vs +26.23% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (3 years), BAMA annualized +15.52% vs +13.02% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BAMA or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 8.9% for BAMA. Worst drawdown: BAMA -12.3% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both BAMA and QQQ?
BAMA and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between BAMA and QQQ?
BAMA and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 105 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BAMA or QQQ?
BAMA yields 1.33% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so BAMA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.