ONOF vs. TBFC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ONOF (Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF) and TBFC (The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. ONOF is passively managed, while TBFC is actively managed. Over the past year, ONOF returned 19.41% vs 13.31% for TBFC. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ONOF charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.44%/yr for TBFC.

Performance

ONOF vs. TBFC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF (ONOF) and The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with ONOF having a 4.74% return and TBFC slightly lower at 4.58%.

ONOF

• 1D: -1.18%
• 1M: -1.14%
• YTD: 4.74%
• 6M: 3.77%
• 1Y: 19.41%
• 3Y*: 12.23%
• 5Y*: 8.47%
• 10Y*: —

TBFC

• 1D: -0.89%
• 1M: 0.01%
• YTD: 4.58%
• 6M: 4.32%
• 1Y: 13.31%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ONOF vs. TBFC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ONOF Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF	4.74%	8.90%	18.95%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	4.58%	11.38%	8.22%

Correlation

The correlation between ONOF and TBFC is 0.86, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2024	0.82

The correlation between ONOF and TBFC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

ONOF vs. TBFC — Risk / Return Rank

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

ONOF

ONOF Risk / Return Rank: 53
ONOF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
ONOF Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
ONOF Omega Ratio Rank: 49
ONOF Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
ONOF Martin Ratio Rank: 57

TBFC

TBFC Risk / Return Rank: 63
TBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
TBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
TBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 69
TBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
TBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

ONOF vs. TBFC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF (ONOF) and The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC). 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.

	ONOF	TBFC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.65	1.94	-0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.24	2.73	-0.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.37	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.84	2.45	+0.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.41	10.13	-0.72

ONOF vs. TBFC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ONOF Sharpe Ratio is 1.65, which is comparable to the TBFC Sharpe Ratio of 1.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ONOF and TBFC, 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

ONOF vs. TBFC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ONOF drawdown since its inception was -26.21%, which is greater than TBFC's maximum drawdown of -8.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ONOF and TBFC.

Drawdown Indicators

	ONOF	TBFC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.21%	-8.89%	-17.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.86%	-5.45%	-1.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.67%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.21%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.07%	-1.36%	-1.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.11%	-1.06%	-5.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.07%	1.32%	+0.75%

Volatility

ONOF vs. TBFC - Volatility Comparison

Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF (ONOF) has a higher volatility of 4.75% compared to The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) at 3.03%. This indicates that ONOF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TBFC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ONOF	TBFC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.75%	3.03%	+1.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.90%	5.88%	+3.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.87%	6.89%	+4.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.42%	7.29%	+7.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.39%	7.29%	+7.10%

ONOF vs. TBFC - Expense Ratio Comparison

ONOF has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than TBFC's 0.44% expense ratio.

Dividends

ONOF vs. TBFC - Dividend Comparison

ONOF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.32%, less than TBFC's 2.96% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ONOF Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF	1.32%	1.38%	0.93%	1.37%	1.92%	0.69%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	2.96%	3.28%	2.98%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ONOF and TBFC in my portfolio?

ONOF and TBFC have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ONOF or TBFC?

ONOF has higher volatility (4.75%) compared to TBFC (3.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ONOF dropped -26.21% vs TBFC's -8.89%.

Which ETF is better, ONOF or TBFC?

On 1-year performance, ONOF leads with 19.41% vs 13.31% for TBFC. On fees, ONOF is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, TBFC has been the lower-risk option at 3.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ONOF or TBFC?

Over the 1-year period, ONOF has performed better with a 19.41% return vs 13.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ONOF or TBFC?

ONOF is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.44% for TBFC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ONOF or TBFC?

TBFC has the higher dividend yield at 2.96%, compared with 1.32% for ONOF.

What is the main difference between ONOF and TBFC?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Brinsmere. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ONOF and 0.44% for TBFC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TBFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.94 vs 1.65), 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.