PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
EEMA vs. BNO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

EEMA vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - EEMA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Brent Crude Oil. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EEMA returned 10.66%/yr vs 13.13%/yr for BNO. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EEMA charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for BNO.

Performance

EEMA vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMA achieves a 26.70% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 85.31% return. Over the past 10 years, EEMA has underperformed BNO with an annualized return of 10.66%, while BNO has yielded a comparatively higher 13.13% annualized return.

EEMA

1D
-0.85%
1M
6.12%
YTD
26.70%
6M
30.29%
1Y
53.35%
3Y*
23.94%
5Y*
6.86%
10Y*
10.66%

BNO

1D
-2.71%
1M
-9.80%
YTD
85.31%
6M
79.66%
1Y
88.71%
3Y*
26.74%
5Y*
23.48%
10Y*
13.13%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EEMA vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF		26.70%33.27%10.23%6.57%-21.49%-4.22%25.17%18.60%-15.76%43.41%
BNO
United States Brent Oil Fund LP		85.31%-5.44%9.67%-3.43%35.25%62.34%-38.23%36.01%-15.30%15.43%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMA and BNO is -0.28, 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

-0.28

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.01

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.09

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.18

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 10, 2012

0.21

The correlation between EEMA and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.28 (1 year) to 0.21 (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.

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF

United States Brent Oil Fund LP

Often compared with EEMA:
EEMA vs. AIAEEMA vs. GMFEEMA vs. VFEM.LEEMA vs. VAPX.ASEEMA vs. MATFXEEMA vs. GXCEEMA vs. MCHI
Often compared with BNO:
BNO vs. USOBNO vs. XLEBNO vs. USLBNO vs. BOILBNO vs. UNGBNO vs. UCOBNO vs. XOM

Return for Risk

EEMA vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
EEMA
EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
BNO
BNO Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
BNO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
BNO Martin Ratio Rank: 5555
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

EEMA vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) 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.

EEMABNODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.63
2.15

+0.48

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.46
2.65

+0.81

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.48

1.36

+0.11

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.75

4.99

-1.24

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.12

9.39

+4.73

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EEMA vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.63, which is comparable to the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMA 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.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

EEMABNODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.63

2.15

+0.48

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.34

0.67

-0.33

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.51

0.36

+0.15

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.37

0.14

+0.23

Drawdowns

EEMA vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMA drawdown since its inception was -44.18%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMA and BNO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EEMABNODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.18%

-87.06%

+42.88%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.30%

-17.87%

+3.57%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.23%

-23.75%

+3.52%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.67%

-33.70%

-6.97%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-44.18%

-75.18%

+31.00%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.01%

-12.72%

+10.71%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.97%

-40.16%

+26.19%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.79%

9.48%

-5.69%

Volatility

EEMA vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) is 8.48%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 14.12%. This indicates that EEMA 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

EEMABNODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.48%

14.12%

-5.64%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.43%

36.21%

-18.78%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.42%

41.56%

-21.14%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.41%

35.40%

-14.99%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.87%

36.69%

-15.82%

EEMA vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEMA has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

EEMA vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

EEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.17%, while BNO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BNO
United States Brent Oil Fund LP		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF		1.17%1.48%1.74%2.02%1.78%2.19%1.15%1.86%2.17%1.74%1.74%2.44%

Frequently Asked Questions

EEMA and BNO have a correlation of -0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BNO has higher volatility (14.12%) compared to EEMA (8.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMA dropped -44.18% vs BNO's -87.06%.

On 10-year performance, BNO leads with 13.13% vs 10.66% for EEMA. On fees, EEMA is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, EEMA has been the lower-risk option at 8.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, BNO has performed better with a 13.13% return vs 10.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EEMA is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BNO.

EEMA has the higher dividend yield at 1.17%, compared with 0.00% for BNO.

EEMA is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while BNO is Oil & Gas. EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index, while BNO tracks Front Month Brent Crude Oil. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EEMA and 0.90% for BNO.

EEMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.63 vs 2.15), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EEMA 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