GIND vs. BNO
GIND (Goldman Sachs India Equity ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - GIND is a Asia Pacific Equities fund actively managed by Goldman Sachs, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Brent Crude Oil. GIND is actively managed, while BNO is passively managed. Over the past year, GIND returned -13.74% vs 91.89% for BNO. At a correlation of -0.27, they often move in opposite directions. GIND charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for BNO.
Performance
GIND vs. BNO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GIND achieves a -12.46% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 90.47% return.
GIND
- 1D
- -1.57%
- 1M
- -2.39%
- YTD
- -12.46%
- 6M
- -11.52%
- 1Y
- -13.74%
- 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%
GIND vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
GIND Goldman Sachs India Equity ETF | -12.46% | 4.55% |
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP | 90.47% | -2.81% |
Correlation
The correlation between GIND and BNO is -0.34, 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 | -0.34 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2025 | -0.27 |
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
GIND vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank
GIND
BNO
GIND vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs India Equity ETF (GIND) 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.
| GIND | BNO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -3.08 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.91 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.87 | 1.38 | -0.51 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.60 | 5.17 | -5.77 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.45 | 9.76 | -11.21 |
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
| GIND | BNO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.85 | 2.23 | -3.08 |
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 | -0.43 | 0.14 | -0.57 |
Drawdowns
GIND vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GIND drawdown since its inception was -22.97%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GIND and BNO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GIND | BNO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.97% | -87.06% | +64.09% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -22.97% | -17.87% | -5.10% |
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 | -17.00% | -10.29% | -6.71% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.85% | -40.17% | +33.32% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 9.52% | 9.45% | +0.07% |
Volatility
GIND vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Goldman Sachs India Equity ETF (GIND) is 5.81%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 14.22%. This indicates that GIND 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
| GIND | BNO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.81% | 14.22% | -8.41% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.04% | 36.10% | -22.06% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.24% | 41.46% | -25.22% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.14% | 35.38% | -18.24% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.14% | 36.68% | -19.54% |
GIND vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison
GIND has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 0.90% expense ratio.
Dividends
GIND vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison
Neither GIND nor BNO has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
GIND and BNO have a correlation of -0.34, 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 GIND (5.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GIND dropped -22.97% vs BNO's -87.06%.
On 1-year performance, BNO leads with 91.89% vs -13.74% for GIND. On fees, GIND is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, GIND has been the lower-risk option at 5.81%. 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 -13.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GIND is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BNO.
GIND and BNO have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
GIND is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while BNO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GIND and 0.90% for BNO.
BNO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs -0.85), 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 GIND 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