MAGC vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

MAGC (Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - MAGC is a China Equities fund actively managed by Roundhill, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Brent Crude Oil. MAGC is actively managed, while BNO is passively managed. Over the past year, MAGC returned -15.61% vs 89.50% for BNO. At a correlation of -0.03, they often move in opposite directions. MAGC charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for BNO.

Performance

MAGC vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGC) 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, MAGC achieves a -15.36% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 86.76% return.

MAGC

• 1D: 4.10%
• 1M: -2.34%
• YTD: -15.36%
• 6M: -17.67%
• 1Y: -15.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BNO

• 1D: 0.76%
• 1M: -7.65%
• YTD: 86.76%
• 6M: 83.45%
• 1Y: 89.50%
• 3Y*: 27.10%
• 5Y*: 23.77%
• 10Y*: 13.38%

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

MAGC vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MAGC Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF	-15.36%	16.35%	-14.54%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	86.76%	-5.44%	-2.35%

Correlation

The correlation between MAGC and BNO is -0.15, 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	-0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 4, 2024	-0.03

The correlation between MAGC and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.15 (1 year) to -0.03 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

MAGC vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

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

MAGC

MAGC Risk / Return Rank: 4
MAGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
MAGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
MAGC Omega Ratio Rank: 4
MAGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
MAGC Martin Ratio Rank: 5

BNO

BNO Risk / Return Rank: 65
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 60
BNO Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
BNO Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

MAGC vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGC) 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.

	MAGC	BNO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.59	2.17	-2.76
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-0.73	2.68	-3.41
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.92	1.37	-0.45
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.44	5.39	-5.83
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-0.85	10.23	-11.08
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MAGC vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MAGC Sharpe Ratio is -0.59, which is lower than the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MAGC 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MAGC	BNO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.59	2.17	-2.76
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.68	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.37	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.29	0.14	-0.43

Drawdowns

MAGC vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MAGC drawdown since its inception was -32.86%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MAGC and BNO.

Drawdown Indicators

	MAGC	BNO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.86%	-87.06%	+54.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.86%	-17.87%	-14.99%
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-28.88%	-12.04%	-16.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.12%	-40.18%	+25.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.98%	9.43%	+7.55%

Volatility

MAGC vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGC) is 10.63%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 15.03%. This indicates that MAGC 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

	MAGC	BNO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.63%	15.03%	-4.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.54%	36.08%	-16.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.65%	41.56%	-14.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.36%	35.37%	-1.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.36%	36.68%	-2.32%

MAGC vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

MAGC has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

MAGC vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

MAGC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.85%, 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%
MAGC Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF	4.85%	4.10%	1.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MAGC and BNO in my portfolio?

MAGC and BNO have a correlation of -0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MAGC or BNO?

BNO has higher volatility (15.03%) compared to MAGC (10.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MAGC dropped -32.86% vs BNO's -87.06%.

Which ETF is better, MAGC or BNO?

On 1-year performance, BNO leads with 89.50% vs -15.61% for MAGC. On fees, MAGC is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, MAGC has been the lower-risk option at 10.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MAGC or BNO?

Over the 1-year period, BNO has performed better with a 89.50% return vs -15.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MAGC or BNO?

MAGC is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BNO.

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

MAGC has the higher dividend yield at 4.85%, compared with 0.00% for BNO.

What is the main difference between MAGC and BNO?

MAGC is categorized as China Equities, while BNO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Roundhill and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for MAGC and 0.90% for BNO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BNO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs -0.59), 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.