BAMO vs QQQ
Brookstone Opportunities 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 | BAMO | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.06% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $47M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.45% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 7 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +7.31% | +16.64% | |
| 1Y Return | +12.66% | +27.27% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +13.62% | +25.96% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +14.54% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 7.5% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -12.7% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Brookstone Asset Management | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 28, 2023 | Mar 10, 1999 |
BAMO vs QQQ Performance
Brookstone Opportunities ETF (BAMO) is a ETF from Brookstone Asset Management and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year BAMO returned +12.66% while QQQ returned +27.27%. Year to date, BAMO is up 7.31% versus a gain of 16.64% for QQQ.
Over three years, BAMO compounded at +13.62% per year against +25.96% for QQQ. Across the full 3-year window we track, BAMO has the edge at +13.62% annualized vs +13.03%. 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 7.5% for BAMO. 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 -12.7% for BAMO 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 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BAMO charges 1.06% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $106 vs $18 annually, a gap of $88 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BAMO currently yields 1.45% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
BAMO and QQQ share 0 holdings out of 107 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, BAMO or QQQ?
BAMO has an expense ratio of 1.06% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $88 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BAMO or QQQ?
Over the past year BAMO returned +12.66% vs +27.27% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (3 years), BAMO annualized +13.62% vs +13.03% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BAMO or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 7.5% for BAMO. Worst drawdown: BAMO -12.7% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both BAMO and QQQ?
BAMO and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BAMO and QQQ?
BAMO and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 107 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BAMO or QQQ?
BAMO yields 1.45% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so BAMO 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.