AGRW vs. BNO

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

AGRW (Allspring LT Large Growth ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - AGRW is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Allspring, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Crude Oil Brent ICE Near Term Futures. AGRW is actively managed, while BNO is passively managed. Over the past year, AGRW returned 10.99% vs 62.83% for BNO. Their -0.15 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. AGRW charges 0.35%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for BNO.

Performance

AGRW vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allspring LT Large Growth ETF (AGRW) and United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AGRW achieves a 4.81% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 77.90% return.

AGRW

• 1D: 1.80%
• 1M: 0.13%
• 6M: 6.07%
• YTD: 4.81%
• 1Y: 10.99%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 21.06%

BNO

• 1D: 1.45%
• 1M: 27.00%
• 6M: 52.90%
• YTD: 77.90%
• 1Y: 62.83%
• 3Y*: 20.31%
• 5Y*: 20.89%
• 10Y*: 15.06%
• ALL TIME*: 4.31%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
AGRW Allspring LT Large Growth ETF	$13.60K	$29.45K	$34.45K
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	$107.13M	$97.34M	$147.52M

AGRW vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AGRW Allspring LT Large Growth ETF	4.81%	23.36%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	77.90%	-6.93%

Correlation

The correlation between AGRW and BNO is -0.23, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.23
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2025	-0.15

Return for Risk

AGRW vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

AGRW

AGRW Risk / Return Rank: 22
AGRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
AGRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
AGRW Omega Ratio Rank: 22
AGRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
AGRW Martin Ratio Rank: 22

BNO

BNO Risk / Return Rank: 52
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 55
BNO Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
BNO Martin Ratio Rank: 45

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

AGRW vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allspring LT Large Growth ETF (AGRW) and United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO). 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.

	AGRW	BNO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.51	1.32	-0.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.81	1.90	-1.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.24	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.54	1.70	-1.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.60	5.15	-3.55

AGRW vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AGRW Sharpe Ratio is 0.51, which is lower than the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 1.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AGRW and BNO, 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

AGRW vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AGRW drawdown since its inception was -16.46%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AGRW and BNO.

Drawdown Indicators

	AGRW	BNO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.46%	-87.06%	+70.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.46%	-34.46%	+18.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-34.46%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-34.46%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.18%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.92%	-16.21%	+10.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.61%	-39.99%	+36.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.52%	11.86%	-6.34%

Volatility

AGRW vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Allspring LT Large Growth ETF (AGRW) is 4.95%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 17.47%. This indicates that AGRW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BNO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AGRW	BNO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.95%	17.47%	-12.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.68%	40.96%	-27.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.16%	44.54%	-27.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.71%	36.41%	-14.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.71%	36.98%	-15.27%

AGRW vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

AGRW has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

AGRW vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

AGRW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.12%, while BNO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
AGRW Allspring LT Large Growth ETF	0.12%	0.13%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AGRW and BNO in my portfolio?

AGRW and BNO have a correlation of -0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AGRW or BNO?

BNO has higher volatility (17.47%) compared to AGRW (4.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AGRW dropped -16.46% vs BNO's -87.06%.

Which ETF is better, AGRW or BNO?

On 1-year performance, BNO leads with 62.83% vs 10.99% for AGRW. On fees, AGRW is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, AGRW has been the lower-risk option at 4.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AGRW or BNO?

Over the 1-year period, BNO has performed better with a 62.83% return vs 10.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AGRW or BNO?

AGRW is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for BNO.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AGRW or BNO?

AGRW has the higher dividend yield at 0.12%, compared with 0.00% for BNO.

What is the main difference between AGRW and BNO?

AGRW is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while BNO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Allspring and USCF. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for AGRW and 1.00% for BNO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BNO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.32 vs 0.51), 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.