BKGI vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

BKGI (Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - BKGI is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by BNY Mellon, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Brent Crude Oil. BKGI is actively managed, while BNO is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BKGI returned 22.31%/yr vs 27.10%/yr for BNO. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BKGI charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for BNO.

Performance

BKGI vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF (BKGI) 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, BKGI achieves a 12.69% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 86.76% return.

BKGI

• 1D: 0.63%
• 1M: -0.23%
• YTD: 12.69%
• 6M: 12.56%
• 1Y: 21.83%
• 3Y*: 22.31%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BNO

• 1D: 0.76%
• 1M: -7.65%
• YTD: 86.76%
• 6M: 83.45%
• 1Y: 89.50%
• 3Y*: 27.10%
• 5Y*: 23.77%
• 10Y*: 13.38%

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

BKGI vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BKGI Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF	12.69%	37.53%	12.35%	9.72%	8.54%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	86.76%	-5.44%	9.67%	-3.43%	-8.36%

Correlation

The correlation between BKGI and BNO is -0.16, 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	-0.16
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 4, 2022	0.06

The correlation between BKGI and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.16 (1 year) to 0.06 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

BKGI vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BKGI

BKGI Risk / Return Rank: 61
BKGI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
BKGI Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
BKGI Omega Ratio Rank: 55
BKGI Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
BKGI Martin Ratio Rank: 67

BNO

BNO Risk / Return Rank: 65
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 60
BNO Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
BNO Martin Ratio Rank: 57

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BKGI vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF (BKGI) 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.

	BKGI	BNO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.89	2.17	-0.28
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.64	2.68	-0.04
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.37	-0.03
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.78	5.39	-1.61
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.47	10.23	+2.25
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BKGI vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BKGI Sharpe Ratio is 1.89, which is comparable to the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BKGI 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BKGI	BNO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.89	2.17	-0.28
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.68	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.37	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.62	0.14	+1.48

Drawdowns

BKGI vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BKGI drawdown since its inception was -14.79%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BKGI and BNO.

Drawdown Indicators

	BKGI	BNO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.79%	-87.06%	+72.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.16%	-17.87%	+11.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.16%	-23.75%	+9.59%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.70%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.18%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.72%	-12.04%	+9.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.56%	-40.18%	+37.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.87%	9.43%	-7.56%

Volatility

BKGI vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF (BKGI) is 4.23%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 15.03%. This indicates that BKGI 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

	BKGI	BNO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.23%	15.03%	-10.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.08%	36.08%	-27.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.63%	41.56%	-29.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.08%	35.37%	-21.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.08%	36.68%	-22.60%

BKGI vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

BKGI has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

BKGI vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

BKGI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.68%, while BNO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BKGI Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF	2.68%	2.65%	4.55%	4.55%	0.53%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BKGI and BNO in my portfolio?

BKGI and BNO have a correlation of -0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BKGI or BNO?

BNO has higher volatility (15.03%) compared to BKGI (4.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BKGI dropped -14.79% vs BNO's -87.06%.

Which ETF is better, BKGI or BNO?

On 3-year performance, BNO leads with 27.10% vs 22.31% for BKGI. On fees, BKGI is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, BKGI has been the lower-risk option at 4.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BKGI or BNO?

Over the 3-year period, BNO has performed better with a 27.10% return vs 22.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BKGI or BNO?

BKGI is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BNO.

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

BKGI has the higher dividend yield at 2.68%, compared with 0.00% for BNO.

What is the main difference between BKGI and BNO?

BKGI is categorized as Energy Equities, while BNO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: BNY Mellon and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for BKGI and 0.90% for BNO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BNO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs 1.89), 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.