MMCA vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

MMCA (IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - MMCA is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by IndexIQ, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Brent Crude Oil. MMCA is actively managed, while BNO is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MMCA returned 4.08%/yr vs 27.10%/yr for BNO. At a correlation of -0.08, they often move in opposite directions. MMCA charges 0.36%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for BNO.

Performance

MMCA vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA) 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, MMCA achieves a 0.71% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 86.76% return.

MMCA

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 0.29%
• YTD: 0.71%
• 6M: 1.17%
• 1Y: 6.39%
• 3Y*: 4.08%
• 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)

MMCA vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
MMCA IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF	0.71%	5.74%	1.70%	5.77%	-12.15%	0.01%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	86.76%	-5.44%	9.67%	-3.43%	35.25%	4.97%

Correlation

The correlation between MMCA and BNO is -0.27, 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	-0.27
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 22, 2021	-0.08

The correlation between MMCA and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.27 (1 year) to -0.08 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

MMCA vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

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

MMCA

MMCA Risk / Return Rank: 65
MMCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
MMCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
MMCA Omega Ratio Rank: 85
MMCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
MMCA Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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.

MMCA vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA) 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.

	MMCA	BNO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.47	2.17	+0.30
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.69	2.68	+1.01
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.37	+0.16
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.13	5.39	-3.26
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	6.82	10.23	-3.41
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MMCA vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MMCA Sharpe Ratio is 2.47, which is comparable to the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MMCA 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

	MMCA	BNO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.47	2.17	+0.30
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	0.04	0.14	-0.10

Drawdowns

MMCA vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MMCA drawdown since its inception was -15.97%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MMCA and BNO.

Drawdown Indicators

	MMCA	BNO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.97%	-87.06%	+71.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.01%	-17.87%	+14.86%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.68%	-23.75%	+20.07%
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	-1.48%	-12.04%	+10.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.05%	-40.18%	+33.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.94%	9.43%	-8.49%

Volatility

MMCA vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA) is 0.90%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 15.03%. This indicates that MMCA 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

	MMCA	BNO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.90%	15.03%	-14.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.89%	36.08%	-34.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.60%	41.56%	-38.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.61%	35.37%	-31.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.61%	36.68%	-33.07%

MMCA vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

MMCA has a 0.36% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

MMCA vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

MMCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.29%, while BNO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MMCA IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF	3.29%	3.39%	3.66%	3.57%	2.90%	0.05%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MMCA and BNO in my portfolio?

MMCA and BNO have a correlation of -0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MMCA or BNO?

BNO has higher volatility (15.03%) compared to MMCA (0.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MMCA dropped -15.97% vs BNO's -87.06%.

Which ETF is better, MMCA or BNO?

On 3-year performance, BNO leads with 27.10% vs 4.08% for MMCA. On fees, MMCA is cheaper at 0.36% per year. On volatility, MMCA has been the lower-risk option at 0.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MMCA or BNO?

Over the 3-year period, BNO has performed better with a 27.10% return vs 4.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MMCA or BNO?

MMCA is cheaper with a 0.36% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BNO.

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

MMCA has the higher dividend yield at 3.29%, compared with 0.00% for BNO.

What is the main difference between MMCA and BNO?

MMCA is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while BNO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: IndexIQ and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.36% for MMCA and 0.90% for BNO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MMCA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 2.17), 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.