FTOH vs. BNO
FTOH (Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - FTOH is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the Actively Managed, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Crude Oil Brent ICE Near Term Futures. Both are passively managed. At a correlation of -0.22, they often move in opposite directions. FTOH charges 0.35%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for BNO.
Performance
FTOH vs. BNO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FTOH achieves a 2.55% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 48.83% return.
FTOH
- 1D
- 0.06%
- 1M
- 0.42%
- 6M
- 2.07%
- YTD
- 2.55%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BNO
- 1D
- -0.05%
- 1M
- -11.86%
- 6M
- 43.76%
- YTD
- 48.83%
- 1Y
- 36.19%
- 3Y*
- 16.16%
- 5Y*
- 16.70%
- 10Y*
- 11.29%
FTOH vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
FTOH Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF | 2.55% | 0.08% |
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP | 48.83% | -2.75% |
Correlation
The correlation between FTOH and BNO is -0.22, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 10, 2025 | -0.22 |
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
FTOH vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank
FTOH
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
BNO
FTOH vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF (FTOH) 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.
| FTOH | BNO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.19 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 1.15 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 3.44 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FTOH vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FTOH drawdown since its inception was -2.59%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTOH and BNO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FTOH | BNO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -2.59% | -87.06% | +84.47% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -34.46% | — |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.47% | -29.90% | +29.43% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.50% | -40.07% | +39.57% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 11.55% | — |
Volatility
FTOH vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FTOH | BNO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 13.12% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 38.38% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.49% | 41.83% | -38.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.49% | 35.87% | -32.38% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.49% | 36.71% | -33.22% |
FTOH vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison
FTOH has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 1.00% expense ratio.
Dividends
FTOH vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison
FTOH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.54%, while BNO has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP | 0.00% | 0.00% |
FTOH Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF | 2.54% | 0.56% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FTOH and BNO have a correlation of -0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, FTOH is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FTOH is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for BNO.
FTOH has the higher dividend yield at 2.54%, compared with 0.00% for BNO.
FTOH is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while BNO is Oil & Gas. FTOH tracks Actively Managed, while BNO tracks Crude Oil Brent ICE Near Term Futures. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and USCF Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for FTOH and 1.00% for BNO.
Find the right allocation for FTOH 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