LRGG vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

LRGG (Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - LRGG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Nomura, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Crude Oil Brent ICE Near Term Futures. LRGG is actively managed, while BNO is passively managed. Over the past year, LRGG returned -3.65% vs 39.47% for BNO. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. LRGG charges 0.45%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for BNO.

Performance

LRGG vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) 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, LRGG achieves a -8.51% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 43.86% return.

LRGG

• 1D: 0.32%
• 1M: -3.73%
• YTD: -8.51%
• 6M: -8.99%
• 1Y: -3.65%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BNO

• 1D: -4.23%
• 1M: -25.93%
• YTD: 43.86%
• 6M: 41.93%
• 1Y: 39.47%
• 3Y*: 17.61%
• 5Y*: 15.98%
• 10Y*: 10.77%

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

LRGG vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LRGG Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF	-8.51%	7.65%	9.34%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	43.86%	-5.44%	-2.41%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGG and BNO is -0.19, 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	-0.19
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2024	-0.07

The correlation between LRGG and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.19 (1 year) to -0.07 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

LRGG vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

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

LRGG

LRGG Risk / Return Rank: 7
LRGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
LRGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
LRGG Omega Ratio Rank: 6
LRGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
LRGG Martin Ratio Rank: 7

BNO

BNO Risk / Return Rank: 29
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 31
BNO Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
BNO Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

LRGG vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) 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.

	LRGG	BNO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.26	0.97	-1.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.25	1.51	-1.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.97	1.20	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.19	1.23	-1.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.49	4.18	-4.67

LRGG vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGG Sharpe Ratio is -0.26, which is lower than the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 0.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGG 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.

Drawdowns

LRGG vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGG drawdown since its inception was -18.94%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGG and BNO.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRGG	BNO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.94%	-87.06%	+68.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.94%	-32.25%	+13.31%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-32.25%	—
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	-11.49%	-32.25%	+20.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.40%	-40.10%	+35.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.48%	9.47%	-1.99%

Volatility

LRGG vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) is 5.56%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 11.33%. This indicates that LRGG 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

	LRGG	BNO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.56%	11.33%	-5.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.68%	37.57%	-25.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.23%	41.20%	-26.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.71%	35.70%	-18.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.71%	36.70%	-19.99%

LRGG vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRGG vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

LRGG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.17%, while BNO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LRGG Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF	0.17%	0.16%	0.13%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRGG and BNO in my portfolio?

LRGG and BNO have a correlation of -0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LRGG or BNO?

BNO has higher volatility (11.33%) compared to LRGG (5.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGG dropped -18.94% vs BNO's -87.06%.

Which ETF is better, LRGG or BNO?

On 1-year performance, BNO leads with 39.47% vs -3.65% for LRGG. On fees, LRGG is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, LRGG has been the lower-risk option at 5.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LRGG or BNO?

Over the 1-year period, BNO has performed better with a 39.47% return vs -3.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LRGG or BNO?

LRGG is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for BNO.

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

LRGG has the higher dividend yield at 0.17%, compared with 0.00% for BNO.

What is the main difference between LRGG and BNO?

LRGG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while BNO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Nomura and USCF Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for LRGG and 1.00% for BNO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BNO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.97 vs -0.26), 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.