PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

FMAT vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FMAT (Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - FMAT is a Materials fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Materials Index, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Brent Crude Oil. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FMAT returned 10.33%/yr vs 13.60%/yr for BNO. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FMAT charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for BNO.

Performance

FMAT vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) 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, FMAT achieves a 13.04% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 90.47% return. Over the past 10 years, FMAT has underperformed BNO with an annualized return of 10.33%, while BNO has yielded a comparatively higher 13.60% annualized return.

FMAT

1D
-0.31%
1M
2.43%
YTD
13.04%
6M
16.00%
1Y
22.50%
3Y*
12.38%
5Y*
5.79%
10Y*
10.33%

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

FMAT vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FMAT
Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF		13.04%12.11%0.47%13.71%-11.54%27.45%19.57%23.35%-17.40%23.51%
BNO
United States Brent Oil Fund LP		90.47%-5.44%9.67%-3.43%35.25%62.34%-38.23%36.01%-15.30%15.43%

Correlation

The correlation between FMAT and BNO is -0.25, 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

-0.25

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

-0.00

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

0.13

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

0.22

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2013

0.25

The correlation between FMAT and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.25 (1 year) to 0.25 (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.

Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF

United States Brent Oil Fund LP

Often compared with FMAT:
FMAT vs. XLBFMAT vs. VAWFMAT vs. XMEFMAT vs. FUTYFMAT vs. GLTRFMAT vs. FXAIXFMAT vs. VOO
Often compared with BNO:
BNO vs. USOBNO vs. XLEBNO vs. USLBNO vs. BOILBNO vs. UNGBNO vs. UCOBNO vs. XOM

Return for Risk

FMAT vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
FMAT
FMAT Risk / Return Rank: 3434
Overall Rank
FMAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FMAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 3434
Sortino Ratio Rank
FMAT Omega Ratio Rank: 3232
Omega Ratio Rank
FMAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 3333
Calmar Ratio Rank
FMAT Martin Ratio Rank: 3535
Martin Ratio Rank
BNO
BNO Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
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.

FMAT vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) 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.

FMATBNODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.28
2.23

-0.95

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.85
2.73

-0.87

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.38

-0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.68

5.17

-3.49

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.51

9.76

-4.25

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

FMAT vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.28, which is lower than the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMAT 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

FMATBNODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.28

2.23

-0.95

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.30

0.69

-0.39

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.49

0.37

+0.12

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.45

0.14

+0.30

Drawdowns

FMAT vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMAT drawdown since its inception was -41.11%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMAT and BNO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FMATBNODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-41.11%

-87.06%

+45.95%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.48%

-17.87%

+4.39%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.17%

-23.75%

+0.58%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.40%

-33.70%

+8.30%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.11%

-75.18%

+34.07%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.97%

-10.29%

+6.32%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.87%

-40.17%

+33.30%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.09%

9.45%

-5.36%

Volatility

FMAT vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) is 6.14%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 14.22%. This indicates that FMAT 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

FMATBNODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.14%

14.22%

-8.08%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.95%

36.10%

-22.15%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.66%

41.46%

-23.80%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.60%

35.38%

-15.78%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.19%

36.68%

-15.49%

FMAT vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMAT has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

FMAT vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

FMAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.42%, 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%
FMAT
Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF		1.42%1.64%1.68%1.71%2.00%1.44%1.73%1.89%2.18%1.53%1.78%2.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

FMAT and BNO have a correlation of -0.25, 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 FMAT (6.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMAT dropped -41.11% vs BNO's -87.06%.

On 10-year performance, BNO leads with 13.60% vs 10.33% for FMAT. On fees, FMAT is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FMAT has been the lower-risk option at 6.14%. 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 13.60% return vs 10.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FMAT is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BNO.

FMAT has the higher dividend yield at 1.42%, compared with 0.00% for BNO.

FMAT is categorized as Materials, while BNO is Oil & Gas. FMAT tracks MSCI USA IMI Materials Index, while BNO tracks Front Month Brent Crude Oil. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for FMAT and 0.90% for BNO.

BNO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 1.28), 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 FMAT 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