BAMU vs QQQ
Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond 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 | BAMU | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.05% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $67M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 3.01% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 6 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +0.92% | +16.64% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.14% | +27.27% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +3.30% | +25.96% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +14.54% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 0.5% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -0.7% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Brookstone Asset Management | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 27, 2023 | Mar 10, 1999 |
BAMU vs QQQ Performance
Brookstone Ultra-Short Bond ETF (BAMU) is a ETF from Brookstone Asset Management and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year BAMU returned +2.14% while QQQ returned +27.27%. Year to date, BAMU is up 0.92% versus a gain of 16.64% for QQQ.
Over three years, BAMU compounded at +3.30% per year against +25.96% for QQQ. Across the full 3-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.03% annualized vs +3.30%. 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 0.5% for BAMU. 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 -0.7% for BAMU 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 -0.19. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BAMU charges 1.05% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $105 vs $18 annually, a gap of $87 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BAMU currently yields 3.01% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
BAMU 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, BAMU or QQQ?
BAMU has an expense ratio of 1.05% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $87 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BAMU or QQQ?
Over the past year BAMU returned +2.14% vs +27.27% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (3 years), BAMU annualized +3.30% vs +13.03% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BAMU or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 0.5% for BAMU. Worst drawdown: BAMU -0.7% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both BAMU and QQQ?
BAMU and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of -0.19, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BAMU and QQQ?
BAMU and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 107 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BAMU or QQQ?
BAMU yields 3.01% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so BAMU 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.