AGRW vs. BNO
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 Front Month Brent Crude Oil. AGRW is actively managed, while BNO is passively managed. Over the past year, AGRW returned 23.16% vs 91.89% for BNO. At a correlation of -0.16, they often move in opposite directions. AGRW charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for BNO.
Performance
AGRW vs. BNO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AGRW achieves a 8.77% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 90.47% return.
AGRW
- 1D
- -1.69%
- 1M
- 7.09%
- YTD
- 8.77%
- 6M
- 8.21%
- 1Y
- 23.16%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BNO
- 1D
- 1.99%
- 1M
- -10.29%
- YTD
- 90.47%
- 6M
- 86.00%
- 1Y
- 91.89%
- 3Y*
- 27.93%
- 5Y*
- 24.16%
- 10Y*
- 13.60%
AGRW vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
AGRW Allspring LT Large Growth ETF | 8.77% | 23.16% |
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP | 90.47% | -7.03% |
Correlation
The correlation between AGRW and BNO is -0.27, 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 | -0.27 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 28, 2025 | -0.16 |
The correlation between AGRW and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.27 (1 year) to -0.16 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
AGRW vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank
AGRW
BNO
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.
| AGRW | BNO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.76 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.71 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | 1.38 | -0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.41 | 5.17 | -3.76 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.73 | 9.76 | -5.03 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| AGRW | BNO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.46 | 2.23 | -0.76 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.69 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.37 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.28 | 0.14 | +1.14 |
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.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| AGRW | BNO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.46% | -87.06% | +70.60% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.46% | -17.87% | +1.41% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -23.75% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -33.70% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -75.18% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.36% | -10.29% | +7.93% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.28% | -40.17% | +36.89% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.91% | 9.45% | -4.54% |
Volatility
AGRW vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Allspring LT Large Growth ETF (AGRW) is 4.34%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 14.22%. 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| AGRW | BNO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.34% | 14.22% | -9.88% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.44% | 36.10% | -23.66% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.91% | 41.46% | -25.55% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.99% | 35.38% | -13.39% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.99% | 36.68% | -14.69% |
AGRW vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison
AGRW has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 0.90% 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
AGRW and BNO have a correlation of -0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BNO has higher volatility (14.22%) compared to AGRW (4.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AGRW dropped -16.46% vs BNO's -87.06%.
On 1-year performance, BNO leads with 91.89% vs 23.16% for AGRW. On fees, AGRW is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, AGRW has been the lower-risk option at 4.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, BNO has performed better with a 91.89% return vs 23.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
AGRW is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BNO.
AGRW has the higher dividend yield at 0.12%, compared with 0.00% for BNO.
AGRW is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while BNO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Allspring and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for AGRW and 0.90% for BNO.
BNO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 1.46), 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.
Find the right allocation for AGRW and BNO
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