MEM vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MEM (Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - MEM is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Matthews, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Crude Oil Brent ICE Near Term Futures. MEM is actively managed, while BNO is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MEM returned 21.88%/yr vs 19.32%/yr for BNO. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MEM charges 0.79%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for BNO.

Performance

MEM vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) 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, MEM achieves a 24.68% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 50.21% return.

MEM

• 1D: -5.79%
• 1M: 2.54%
• YTD: 24.68%
• 6M: 25.39%
• 1Y: 46.10%
• 3Y*: 21.88%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BNO

• 1D: -1.35%
• 1M: -22.65%
• YTD: 50.21%
• 6M: 47.81%
• 1Y: 38.79%
• 3Y*: 19.32%
• 5Y*: 17.15%
• 10Y*: 11.25%

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

MEM vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
MEM Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	24.68%	28.31%	10.11%	6.92%	7.13%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	50.21%	-5.44%	9.67%	-3.43%	-4.88%

Correlation

The correlation between MEM and BNO is -0.24, 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	-0.24
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2022	0.11

The correlation between MEM and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.24 (1 year) to 0.11 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

MEM vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

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

MEM

MEM Risk / Return Rank: 65
MEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
MEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
MEM Omega Ratio Rank: 66
MEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
MEM Martin Ratio Rank: 66

BNO

BNO Risk / Return Rank: 29
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 29
BNO Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
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.

MEM vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) 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.

	MEM	BNO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.97	0.95	+1.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.58	1.49	+1.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.19	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.17	1.33	+1.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.12	4.21	+6.92

MEM vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.97, which is higher than the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 0.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MEM 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

MEM vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MEM drawdown since its inception was -19.10%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MEM and BNO.

Drawdown Indicators

	MEM	BNO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.10%	-87.06%	+67.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.62%	-29.25%	+14.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.10%	-29.25%	+10.15%
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	-5.79%	-29.25%	+23.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.73%	-40.10%	+35.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.16%	9.28%	-5.12%

Volatility

MEM vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) has a higher volatility of 12.91% compared to United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) at 10.92%. This indicates that MEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BNO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MEM	BNO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.91%	10.92%	+1.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.33%	37.29%	-15.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.57%	41.67%	-18.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.10%	35.65%	-16.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.10%	36.68%	-17.58%

MEM vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

MEM has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

MEM vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

MEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.86%, while BNO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MEM Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	2.86%	3.56%	7.81%	0.01%	0.53%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MEM and BNO in my portfolio?

MEM and BNO have a correlation of -0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MEM or BNO?

MEM has higher volatility (12.91%) compared to BNO (10.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MEM dropped -19.10% vs BNO's -87.06%.

Which ETF is better, MEM or BNO?

On 3-year performance, MEM leads with 21.88% vs 19.32% for BNO. On fees, MEM is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, BNO has been the lower-risk option at 10.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MEM or BNO?

Over the 3-year period, MEM has performed better with a 21.88% return vs 19.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MEM or BNO?

MEM is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for BNO.

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

MEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.86%, compared with 0.00% for BNO.

What is the main difference between MEM and BNO?

MEM is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while BNO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Matthews and USCF Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for MEM and 1.00% for BNO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.97 vs 0.95), 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.